24/04/2012 Newsnight Scotland

Tonight on Newsnight Scotland: Did Alex Salmond offer to intervene

with the British government in support of Rupert Murdoch's bid to

take over BSkyB? The First Minister says he had no direct contact.

Opposition parties are demanding he appear before Parliament to explain

himself. So who's right? And Rangers still have no preferred

bidder and now have hefty sanctions from the Scottish Football

Association. Are matters lurching from bad to worse or is there an

Good evening. The Leveson Inquiry is rapidly

spreading its tentacles into unexpected places. Not only did

Jeremy Hunt move to the centre of attention today, so did the First

Minister Alex Salmond. Both James Murdoch in his testimony and News

Corp emails released as part of the inquiry suggested Mr Salmond

offered to support the Murdochs' proposed takeover of the whole of

BSkyB. Mr Salmond says he never contacted Mr Hunt on the issue but

that hasn't stopped the questions. Here's our political editor Brian

Alex Salmond has repeatedly faced criticism either his claimed links

with Rupert Murdoch. This controversy centres on the former

bid of Mr Murdoch's News Corporation for BSkyB. The issue

was raised today at the Leveson Inquiry into press ethics. Mr

Murdoch's son, James, denied that the Culture Secretary had acted as

a cheerleader for the bid within the UK Government. But he did agree

that the company had been seeking support to voices. One of those,

apparently, was the First Minister. He had offered to be supportive as

a Scottish politician and leader. Now the responsibility had shifted

to Mr Hunt, we were in an undertaking phase. Those economic

arguments still stood. If you see previously, in other places, Mr

Hunt's advisers suggest we should try to find allies, people who can

advocate who are not just asked talking. Mr Salmond had already

said he thought this might be a good transaction for Scotland.

But Mr Murdoch's denied a question that the bid's support for Mr

Salmond was in return for favourable coverage in the Scott

this gun -- Scottish Sun. The favourable coverage means that

Mr Salmond is more willing and more likely to want to call Mr Hunt,

quote, whenever we need him to. If the insinuation is that there

was any quid pro quo regarding a commercial agenda, I can tell you

it is false. The inquiry was told of internal e-

mails from Frederic Michel, News Corporation's director affairs, to

James Murdoch. In 2010, he referred to economic development and said

that Mr Salmond was very keen to also put these issues to Vince

Cable, who opposed the BSkyB bid, and have a call with you tomorrow

on the matter. He said his team would also brief the Scottish press

on the importance of News Corporation for Scotland.

When ninth November, he notes that Alex Salmond's a strong ally to put

forward. In February 2011, he says, I met with Alex Salmond's adviser

to date. He will call Mr Hunt whenever we need him to. He says

the Sun is keen to back the SNP at the election. Separately, he as at

the end that on the Sky bid, Mr Salmond will make himself available

if consultation is launched. Tonight Mr Salmon's denied any

wrongdoing. I met BSkyB and talked-about

employment in Scotland, but there was never any quid pro quo. There

was chat with in News International. They could not be any quid pro quo.

The reality is that I never phoned or road to Jeremy Hunt -- all wrote

to Jeremy Hunt. The News Corporation bid for BSkyB

was abandoned in July last year. Mr Salmond says demands for a

statement our stuff and nonsense and he will be available to answer

questions at the regular Thursday session in Parliament. He is also

willing to give evidence to the Leveson Inquiry.

We asked the First Minister to appear tonight but he was

unavailable. We then asked if anyone from the Scottish Government

would like to appear, but again no- one was available. We then asked

whether anyone from the SNP would like to take part, but again they

were unable to do so. I'm joined from Edinburgh by the Liberal

Democrat MSP Tavish Scott, and here with me is Labour's Jackie Baillie.

You have seen what Alex Salmond had to say tonight. Do you accept it as

an explanation? I accept he may not have written,

he may not have called, but the question that remains to be

answered is whether the offer was made in the first place. For me,

this strikes at the very heart of how the SNP do business, this kind

of suggestion of backroom deals and shady favours. It is distressing to

say the least to find that our First Minister is using his office

to offer commercial support for a BSkyB bid at the same time as there

seems to be a suggestion in this e- mail that what we have his support

from the Sun for the SNP prior to the Scottish elections. If you look

at the timing of this, James Murdoch met with Alex Salmond days

before the exchange of e-mails, a couple of months before the last

Scottish Parliament elections. But for our First Minister to be

prepared to intervene with Vince Cable, to intervene with Jeremy

Hunt, too, as his adviser put it, call whenever he was needed to,

suggests that to me that Alex Salmond was at the beck and call of

Rupert Murdoch. Do you accept Alex Salmond's

explanation of at -- explanation? I understand the Guardian is saying

that there was a core set up to Jeremy Hunt's office, and we will

only know when Mr Simon answers questions whether that is true. --

Mr summoned. It does seem in one of the mouse

that a core has been set up. That does not mean that one actually

happened. I agree, but we don't know the

answer to these questions. That is why we should here a statement

tomorrow. Instead he should be answering these questions. He is

going to appear before Lord Leveson himself. Surely he has got

something to say to that. Had the QC not asked that question about Mr

Salmond's lobbying on behalf of Rupert Murdoch today, none of us

would be any wiser. I think we have done ourselves a big service.

Parliament deserves a full explanation for Mr Salmond, who is

apparently too busy to do that. Do you back that call from the Lib

Dems, that Alex summer should appear tomorrow if?

If he gives evidence under oath to Leveson Inquiry, we have had

misleading statements from the First Minister before. In August

the claim to have published all correspondence between herself and

the Murdochs. There was no mention of this. That was his opportunity

to come clean. He chose to keep that hidden.

A spokesman for the Scottish government tonight seems to suggest

that Alex Salmond's view is that there were no competition issues

and the deal was important for Scotland because of jobs. You might

not agree with that, but it is a legitimate point of the two have,

isn't it? It is legitimate on jobs if that

was the argument that we were actually to believe. But nobody in

Scottish politics, nobody in Scotland, believes this is an

argument about jobs. This is about Alex Salmond lobbying for Rupert

Murdoch. His relationship with Rupert Murdoch, he had tea at his

house and we find out from the mouse tonight that he offered to

have dinner -- from the e-mails tonight that he offered to have

dinner with James Murdoch. We don't know the true extent of salmon's

relationship with the Murdoch family. But it goes on and on. It

relates to politics. There's plenty of room in this.

This is adviser talking to advisers. There's plenty of room for talking

up your own game or simply misunderstanding. Somebody says, oh,

of course I wish you well and they take that as an endorsement.

There's no question of understanding here. You understand

the blizzard between the First Minister and his senior special

adviser. -- the relationship. There's no doubt in my mind that

the offer here was commercial sport that requires support for the BSkyB

I quote, he was taken, and this is Harrison, by our commitment to

Scotland and Alex and an's desire to support us. It is a strong on

which to put forward. -- Alex Salmond's desire.

I was taken aback by that one. was shocked!

I was trying to think who that might be. If I get called to give

evidence, I will. Are you saying that you have no

knowledge of any contact between the Lib Dems in Scotland and the

Murdoch empire? I have no knowledge of that. I

would be more than happy to show my diaries or appear before the

inquiry. I wish Mr Salmond would. You lost in the entire period in

government last time sucking up to the murders. -- you mock -- you lot

spent the entire period in government last time.

If Alex Salmond was guilty of simply making the same mistake,

that would be one thing. I think he is going further. He is using the

office of the First Minister basically to support a commercial

bid for BSkyB exchange for party political advantage. I think he

If it is a tall possible, the fortunes of Rangers Football Club

have taken another turn southwards after the double authorities buying

at the club and a post eight transfer ban. The manager and a

McCoist claimed this could destroy the club, -- the manager Ally

McCoist. As time goes on, the future of

Rangers becomes increasingly more precarious. The deadline of

announcing any bidder has come and gone twice. Now the SFA has banged

the club won and and �60,000, -- find the club �160,000, and stopped

them from getting a new player for a year. This stops them getting

another buyer. You are now being told that even if you lose players

in the summers, which you will, you are not able to invest or bring in

new players even if you have funds in available. So you end up with a

completely different organisation, heavily reliant on young players.

If they cannot bite him new players who can compete in the highest

level, it will not be a good investment. Today the

administrators released a statement applying their frustration at this

latest turn of events. They are appealing against the transfer ban

and says the decision is extraordinary. They say it hinders

rather than helps any chances of selling of this club as a viable

business. Time is running out for Rangers, they say. They have asked

the football authorities to be more pragmatic. The SFA's says it is

deciding in accordance with its own rules, but the Rangers manager had

this to say. This decision could kill our football club, simple as

that. Make no mistake, the people have made a decision, they are not

totally to blame, I have to tell you, for the death of our football

club if it happens. But this particular decision could kill our

Football Club. Time has already run out for the former chairman. Jake

White has been banned for life from any involvement in Scottish

football, and he has been given a fine of �200,000. But the fall-out

could travel far wider than Ibrox. As one of Scotland's biggest clubs,

Rangers' troubles could cost others dearly. There is another out come

which is for the broader game of football in Scotland. It needs good

clubs like Rangers, not only them but like them, to be doing well and

be healthy. That brings in the TV contract, the gate result. That the

-- the TV contract could just fall apart if the Rangers is not playing

in the top flight. The clubs are rivals but they are collaborators

in the game, they need each other to be healthy. Today's developments

will inevitably mean delays in securing the club's future. Time

that Rangers can ill-afford. Where are we now? Neil Patey is a

football finance expert at Ernst and Young, and Tracey Campbell-Hynd

is the founder and owner of TCH Law which specialises in debt recovery.

These sanctions have been opposed by the SFA, we apparently have no

progress did these bids. Where are we? We have had another major blow.

This has added more uncertainty and a delay for the bidders who are

considering what they what -- what they might want to play. Also a new

bidder would want to restructure the club in the summer, to prevent

the loss ranges can do, they cannot do that if they cannot buy new

players to replace the expensive players. Are there any legal issues

here? How long can you go on being in administration? It can be

indefinitely. They have to renew it, but it can be for a very long

period of time. Bearing in mind, they are there for the benefit of

creditors. It is seeing or baking get back for the creditors. This is

something, -- this is something, whether they are in a position as

administrators going round to take bids for this club, and his siding

he is a preferred bidder or not a preferred bidder. Because the club

is owned by crack -- Craig White. That is what they are there to do.

They cannot sell without his permission. They have to work

towards doing something for the benefit of the creditors. If he

does not agree, he has got the right to do that? Certainly from

the point of view from the administrators, they have to work

towards it, they have to see where the club is going forwards. The

creditors have to be considered at all times. Effectively, the

administrators are out there and getting the information in, they

have to gather as much information as they camped and that is the only

way the club is going to go forward one way or another. Whether it be

liquidation or another thing, they need to get information. We have

talked about this before, I want to make it clear. If they try to sell

Rangers as a going concern, the creditors, I E Craig White, would

have to agree, but they have a legal right to liquidate the club

and he would have their say? From the point of view of a sea of the E,

that is what it is. The creditors agree how the club is going to be

taken forward. That is all creditors. Obviously Craig White is

a large one, and that is the charge issue, it is about the secured

creditors. There is a preference of payments that would come out from

an administrator through the liquidation. Ordinary creditors are

at the bottom end of it. They are at the bottom end of the pecking

orders. But the tax office is also involved in that. It is up to the

creditors whether it will be a liquidation. This tends to a point

with the players. They all took wage cuts. I understood that was

time-limited until the end of the season. If they are banned from

transfers, and those players do not, because there cannot -- the club

cannot pay them, they have the right to what -- walk out and they

are the main assets of the club. That is allowed to happen. In what

sense does that mean you are acting in the best interest of the

creditors? There is a time line looming. That is why the

administrators are very keen to try and proceed with a sale and getting

up administration, which I do not think is possible, but as close to

the date in June as possible. You then get into summer where you will

have to let some of those players go. If you can't get a new owner

coming in funding the rock -- the last the preferred to. Is

depressing image. There is -- that is the looming image. There is this

thing, who do the administrators work for? Football and Rangers in

particular is -- it is politics with a small p, but that is not

what the administrators should be bearing in mind. Their remit is the

protection of the creditors, to try and gather as much of the assets of

the club as possible. That has been forgotten in a lot of the

speculation with regard to the administration as a whole. There

are a lot of credit is out there, and a lot of creditors have this as

a lifeline. There are a large amount of money is owed, taking

away from the HR Owen c and b Craig White issues, there are ordinary

creditors there who have to know what they need to do to get their

money back. They have the made the formal claims. Just another

technical point, these preferred bidders, is any of this meaning

for? Why do you have to have a preferred bidder? What does that

mean? It is not exclusivity which is a fine point, they are not

committing to someone with a written agreement on that. They

want a preferred bidder so they can move forward and get a commitment

on how much they would be prepared to pay with as little or no

conditions attached. One assumes that every bit going in, clause

number one says we will take over this club only if you do not get

landed with a �70 million bill or more from the tax authorities.

have not seen the offer, but I think the offer will be for the

company as it comes out of administration clean, so the debts

are cleaned up by the compromise agreement. Be you think this club,

from what you know of it, is headed for liquidation? The problem that

we have is that every day there is a different development, it is very

difficult to actually say that. What is your hunch? Difficult to

call, it will come down to the position of the eight foreign air -