Generic Sevco / Rangers meltdown thread

[stokesmessiah]

C4 tonight at 7pm should be interesting

Hollyoaks??

What's happening?

[Joe's ice cream]

C4 tonight at 7pm should be interesting

Take it your refering to this :aok:

http://blogs.channel4.com/alex-thomsons-view/rangers-saga-hide-deeper-corruption-football/964

[DH1875]

I honestly can't believe this is still going on.

[ancient hibee]

I saw Paul Murray quoted as saying that Whyte should give the blue knights his Rangers shares for nothing.Rather gives the game away as to who Murray recognises as the actual owner-meaning that Whyte will want value for his holding-meaning that nothing will happen any time soon.

[jgl07]

Coming up on Channel Four News soon.

Hugh Adams to spill the beans?

Hopefully this will put some pressure on the SPL and the SFA to take action?

[Jack]

He sounded like the doddery auld bugger you avoid in the pub.

Not saying that what he's saying isn't true.

[cabbageandribs1875]

So the last friday deadline is pretty flexible eh?

This is some administration....


you would think they admins are making the rules up as they go along eh :agree: without a doubt, it will be huntic in the top two spots in next seasons league as well :aok:

[StevieC]

He sounded like the doddery auld bugger you avoid in the pub.

Not saying that what he's saying isn't true.

What did he say?

[green glory]

What did he say?

Confirmed the existence of dual contracts and agreed it was cheating.

[greenginger]

What did he say?

Roughly that there had been lots of payments made to players at Ibrox that was'nt in their contracts and that it had been cheating.

The guy Thomson will have to do better than tonight's program if he is going to breach the walls of SFA/SPL Old Firm corruption i'm afraid.

[grunt]

The guy Thomson will have to do better than tonight's program if he is going to breach the walls of SFA/SPL Old Firm corruption in afraid.I agree. After the build up of the last few days, the three blog posts which seemed to make some good points, the news item tonight left me a bit disappointed. It was a bit of a shock seeing Hugh Adams, who doesn't appear to be a well man. There's so much scope for investigation at Rangers just now, you would think that the media could score some serious damage against the club. Tonight, no mention of David Murray's role in the BTC.

[grunt]

As an aside, how poor has Gordon Smith been over the last two days? This guy was the Chief Executive of the SFA for goodness sake! Yesterday it was all, "I didn't know"; and tonight he's been busy explaining the extent of his non-job at RFC.

[greenginger]

As an aside, how poor has Gordon Smith been over the last two days? This guy was the Chief Executive of the SFA for goodness sake! Yesterday it was all, "I didn't know"; and tonight he's been busy explaining the extent of his non-job at RFC.


I think the job of chief executive of the SFA was way too big a job for Smith.

He should have stuck to being a football agent for second raters and a part-time football pundit / full-time Old Firm a*re licker.

[HFC 0-7]

I see the SPL/SFA are going out to all the members to see if anyone else has been using dual contracts. I bet they hope a few clubs own up so that they can give everyone a wrap over the knuckles and not be seen as letting rangers off the hook.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/17451592

[BEEJ]

What did he say?
Frequent references in the piece to "this being rife in Scottish football" [sic] were irritating, to say the least.

It was as much a tilt at the whole game in Scotland as an expose of the fiasco at Ibrox.

[Eyrie]

Heard an alarming suggestion today that HMRC may accept a CVA for the Huns because their main objection is to England's football preferred creditor rule which doesn't apply in our country.

[jgl07]

Heard an alarming suggestion today that HMRC may accept a CVA for the Huns because their main objection is to England's football preferred creditor rule which doesn't apply in our country.

What and send out a message to the effect that if you are stung for a £50 million tax bill, just hang on and increase the debt by another £15 million and then settle for £5 million via a CVA?

It all sounds like wishful thinking from the Huns much like the talk last week of a 'Treasury approved' deal with HMRC.

[CentreLine]

I see the SPL/SFA are going out to all the members to see if anyone else has been using dual contracts. I bet they hope a few clubs own up so that they can give everyone a wrap over the knuckles and not be seen as letting rangers off the hook.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/17451592

Tht's my concern. They are looking for any straw they can cling on to in order to save the (in)famous glasgow rangers. Absolutely finished with Scottish football if this goes unpunished regardless of how many teams "own up". I'd rather see all 12 SPL teams start again on the 3rd Division than any one go unpunished

[PaulSmith]

Heard an alarming suggestion today that HMRC may accept a CVA for the Huns because their main objection is to England's football preferred creditor rule which doesn't apply in our country.

Today's budget will see measures aimed to claw back millions of tax lost through avoidance schemes, hardly seems like the right timing to then cut a deal with a company doing exactly that.

[Keith_M]

I'll double your stake Keith and together we can form a consortium, buy a failing Scottish club and watch them rise from the ashes like a phoenix and return to their former glory. Would be nice to watch the Bluebell again after all those years ;-)


Ah the Bluebell. The pain of their demise is still too raw.



Maybe we could finish the greyhound stadium (http://www.eastlothiancourier.com/news/aroundthecounty/articles/2011/02/03/409865-dog-track-a-nap-for-2012-/) and locate them there. I feel a campaign coming on :greengrin

[TornadoHibby]

There was a bit yesterday on the beeb website comparing the three British clubs in administration Rangers
If the administrator's glass is half full at Port Vale and half empty at Pompey, it is sometimes hard to tell if the administrators even have a glass at Rangers. (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-17026172) In fact, it is hard to tell if they are even administrators.
RANGERS

Patient: The Rangers Football Club PLC
Founded: 1872, 140 years of unbroken success
Administrators: Paul Clark and David Whitehouse of Duff & Phelps, new to this field but come highly recommended
Problem: Acute tax crisis, confused ownership issues, problems with authority, legal headaches, £40-90m of debt (further tests required)
Prognosis: Still too early to tell but the spirit is willing



At the time of writing, the experts from Duff and Phelps (http://www.duffandphelps.com/Pages/default.aspx) (D&P) are heading to court to explain how they botched the process of putting the Old Firm giants into administration last month and why they should be allowed another chance to do so. (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-17433007)
The mistake they made on that remarkable Valentine's Day was to forget to ask the UK's banking regulator, the Financial Services Authority (FSA), if it minded Rangers being placed in D&P's emergency care.
FSA approval is not a typical requirement because few football clubs ever come under the financial watchdog's auspices. But Rangers did when they toyed with the idea of issuing a credit card in 2008, an idea they dropped and then forgot about, apparently.
All very embarrassing, particularly in a week when the administrators had been hoping for some respite after a bruising start to their rescue mission.
The erstwhile joint administrators, Paul Clark and David Whitehouse, might have temporarily become interim managers as a result but their powers were basically the same, as were their responsibilities.
While the FSA snafu was a storm in a teacup, it did reveal two problems facing Clark and Whitehouse as they try to save a British cultural institution and global sports brand: one, they have no football experience; and two, they work for an American-owned firm based in England.
Taking that second point first, a clerical error like failing to check whether a company is FSA-registered can often be dealt with quickly and quietly by English judges. That is not the case north of the border.
The interim managers have also experienced some hairy moments with Scottish contempt of court laws, which are slightly different to the English ones. No harm has been done but you wonder whether they should be learning this stuff on such a high-profile job.
Not knowing the Scottish scene as instinctively as a local firm has had another effect that has been compounded by this being D&P's first football administration: the intense interest in their every move has, at times, mangled the message.
Knowing that they were perceived to be in the pocket of the club's controversial owner Craig Whyte, Clark and Whitehouse have gone to great lengths to prove their independence.
There is one other point worth making about D&P's outsider status, however: no Scottish firms wanted the work because they feared for their windows.
And that should tell you everything you need to know about which of the current administrations in British football will be the hardest to resolve successfully.

.

Are you, or anyone else for that matter, aware of a "local firm" who would have been up to the job and would have taken the appointment?! :wink: :rolleyes: :greengrin

[CropleyWasGod]

Heard an alarming suggestion today that HMRC may accept a CVA for the Huns because their main objection is to England's football preferred creditor rule which doesn't apply in our country.

From whom? I'm intrigued.

[PatHead]

From whom? I'm intrigued.

Bet you it was the Daily Mail.............................................. ...:devil:

[down the slope]

Heard an alarming suggestion today that HMRC may accept a CVA for the Huns because their main objection is to England's football preferred creditor rule which doesn't apply in our country.

This from todays budget from the chancellor "Along the way Mr Osborne described aggressive tax avoidance as "morally repugnant". lets see if the taxman lets the huns off the hook following that ?.

[Eyrie]

From whom? I'm intrigued.

A Celtc supporting partner in a CA firm, of all places. Not sure where he came across the suggestion though.

Was hoping that someone would shoot the idea down, so maybe Osbourne's the man?

[jgl07]

A Celtc supporting partner in a CA firm, of all places. Not sure where he came across the suggestion though.

Was hoping that someone would shoot the idea down, so maybe Osbourne's the man?

Wishful thinking by the Celts?

It suits Celtc to have an impoversished Rangers limping along in the SPL.

[silverhibee]

Wishful thinking by the Celts?

It suits Celtc to have an impoversished Rangers limping along in the SPL.



And celtc are not happy they are getting all the Sky money to themselfs.

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/2012/03/22/furious-celtic-in-sky-tv-threat-ahead-of-old-firm-clash-as-row-over-spl-voting-structure-escalates-86908-23797197/

[Hibs Class]

And celtc are not happy they are getting all the Sky money to themselfs.

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/2012/03/22/furious-celtic-in-sky-tv-threat-ahead-of-old-firm-clash-as-row-over-spl-voting-structure-escalates-86908-23797197/


Same story here with the added benefit of not having to click on a daily weedge link.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/17467025

[RyeSloan]

Same story here with the added benefit of not having to click on a daily weedge link.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/17467025


Sums up the situation perfectly...the fact is though the '10' voted for this 11-1 set up in the first place so only have themselves to blame.

Surely now thought is the time to change the OF dominance in terms of controlling the league once and for all, OK might not actually break their dominance in terms of winning the thing but we HAVE to start somewhere.

[ancienthibby]

It's a slow day for news on this thread, so this might help:

You can mess up the company payments, avoid the taxman, but DO NOT fail to pay her who must be obeyed!

http://www.scotsman.com/news/rangers-owner-craig-whyte-ordered-to-pay-monthly-sum-to-estranged-wife-1-2190318

[calmac12000]

Och I've got to the point of not believing a single word of anything that comes via the laptop loyal. Fantasy and wishful thinking, that about somes up our popular media. I'm just waiting with glee for the Heart to join their Glasgow brethern. Maybe the scandal over at Castle Greyskull will prompt some enterprising reporter to look at the finances down Gorgie way.

[BurghHibby]

It's a slow day for news on this thread, so this might help:

You can mess up the company payments, avoid the taxman, but DO NOT fail to pay her who must be obeyed!

http://www.scotsman.com/news/rangers-owner-craig-whyte-ordered-to-pay-monthly-sum-to-estranged-wife-1-2190318

Now there's a name to conjure with - Ms Brabender, wonder if she's featured in "Lawyers Wives" etc.

[jgl07]

Och I've got to the point of not believing a single word of anything that comes via the laptop loyal. Fantasy and wishful thinking, that about somes up our popular media. I'm just waiting with glee for the Heart to join their Glasgow brethern. Maybe the scandal over at Castle Greyskull will prompt some enterprising reporter to look at the finances down Gorgie way.

Well a week gone and wages still not paid at the PBS.

Just over one week to go before audited accounts have to be submitted for last year.

How can any auditor sign off the Hearts' accounts if wages remain unpaid? This is especially the case given the public statements made by UBIG.

If could still be a big double whammy by the end of the season: Rangers and Hearts!

[greenginger]

Duff and Duffer loose the Ticketus case. 100,000 Season Tickets sales gone west. Craigy boy you are a Hero !:thumbsup:

[Golden Bear]

Well a week gone and wages still not paid at the PBS.

Just over one week to go before audited accounts have to be submitted for last year.

How can any auditor sign off the Hearts' accounts if wages remain unpaid? This is especially the case given the public statements made by UBIG.

If could still be a big double whammy by the end of the season: Rangers and Hearts!

The big team are too small fry for the Authorities to bother about.

[CropleyWasGod]

Duff and Duffer loose the Ticketus case. 100,000 Season Tickets sales gone west. Craigy boy you are a Hero !:thumbsup:

Great news :agree:

I couldn't imagine a situation where a Court would decide otherwise, TBH, but one did worry.

Where are you getting this from?

[Judas Iscariot]

Duff and Duffer loose the Ticketus case. 100,000 Season Tickets sales gone west. Craigy boy you are a Hero !:thumbsup:

So what does this mean then?

[greenginger]

Great news :agree:

I couldn't imagine a situation where a Court would decide otherwise, TBH, but one did worry.

Where are you getting this from?


Its been tweeted from a couple of people at the Court , I know I know _____

[CropleyWasGod]

So what does this mean then?

It means that Ticketus are due the proceeds from the first 100,000 ST sales over the next 3-4 years.

It probably also means that some of the bidders will drop out of the process, as that is a huge hole in the club's income.

[greenginger]

All expenses against Duff and Duffer as well apparently :agree:

[CropleyWasGod]

All expenses against Duff and Duffer as well apparently :agree:

There is a God.

And he ain't a Proddy :greengrin

[Saorsa]

Duff and Duffer loose the Ticketus case. 100,000 Season Tickets sales gone west. Craigy boy you are a Hero !:thumbsup:


All expenses against Duff and Duffer as well apparently :agree:http://i1175.photobucket.com/albums/r623/JDPH1875/smilies/thumbsupg.gif http://i1175.photobucket.com/albums/r623/JDPH1875/smilies/cheersg.gif


http://i1175.photobucket.com/albums/r623/JDPH1875/smilies/lolrangersg.gif

[JeMeSouviens]

So what does this mean then?

It means that if the Huns somehow manage to wriggle out of administration with a deal from the notoriously non-football-dealing HMRC then they will get no income from the first 20 odd thousand season tickets each season for the next 3.

If they are forced to liquidate and emerge as Phoenix Huns, the position is much less clear. You would imagine a newco selling its STs would not be bound by a deal done with the original Huns. However, there is some speculation that Ticketus have something up their sleeves, possibly tying the deal to whoever takes ownership of Ibrox rather than the football club. Almost certain to go through the courts for a protracted period. :wink:

[JimBHibees]

All expenses against Duff and Duffer as well apparently :agree:

Is that likely to be alot?

[CropleyWasGod]

It means that if the Huns somehow manage to wriggle out of administration with a deal from the notoriously non-football-dealing HMRC then they will get no income from the first 20 odd thousand season tickets each season for the next 3.

If they are forced to liquidate and emerge as Phoenix Huns, the position is much less clear. You would imagine a newco selling its STs would not be bound by a deal done with the original Huns. However, there is some speculation that Ticketus have something up their sleeves, possibly tying the deal to whoever takes ownership of Ibrox rather than the football club. Almost certain to go through the courts for a protracted period. :wink:

It's 100,000

[TheEastTerrace]

http://news.stv.tv/scotland/west-central/301435-rangers-administrators-lose-in-court-move-to-ditch-244m-ticketus-deal/

[Spike Mandela]

So what does this mean then?

Liquidation, methinks.

[CropleyWasGod]

Is that likely to be alot?

Advocate's expenses for both sides, for a day in Court, plus the related solicitors' fees in preparing the cases.

Oh yes. :agree:

[Mikey]

Is that likely to be alot?

I'd imagine it would be added to their bill anyway.

[CropleyWasGod]

Liquidation, methinks.

Not yet.

They still have a few options to work through.

1. 2 of the 4 bidders will probably drop out, but that still leaves 2.

2. the CVA has still to be attempted.

[ancienthibby]

Liquidation, methinks.

For the moment I would think that would put the Paul Murray deal well in front, since he already has a working capital deal in the bag with them. (Ticketus, that is!)

Leaves the taxpayers well and truly out of the money!:agree:

[JeMeSouviens]

It's 100,000

Does it not start until next season's STs? Was assuming it included the current season. Even better if not. :greengrin

[Viking]

SSN reporting that a sheriff has ruled that the ticketus deal stands!!

GITYU rangers!!! :agree:

[johnrebus]

Not yet.

They still have a few options to work through.

1. 2 of the 4 bidders will probably drop out, but that still leaves 2.

2. the CVA has still to be attempted.



And Craigy boy still owns 80% of the shares......,

[CropleyWasGod]

Does it not start until next season's STs? Was assuming it included the current season. Even better if not. :greengrin

I understood that it was to be over 3 years, including this one. Then, when CW couldn't pay the first instalment this season, the deal was extended to 4 years.

So.. this season has still to be paid for, and the next 3.

:flag:

[Keith_M]

http://news.stv.tv/scotland/west-cen...ticketus-deal/ (http://news.stv.tv/scotland/west-central/301435-rangers-administrators-lose-in-court-move-to-ditch-244m-ticketus-deal/)

"Duff and Phelps had claimed that the deal would hamper their attempts to sell the club."

Hardly a solid legal position to get out of a legally binding transaction.


"The administrators QC David Sellar had claimed in court that two of the four indicative bids for the club were dependent on the Ticketus deal being breached."

So what?


Are those the best arguments they could come up with?

[CropleyWasGod]

For the moment I would think that would put the Paul Murray deal well in front, since he already has a working capital deal in the bag with them. (Ticketus, that is!)

Leaves the taxpayers well and truly out of the money!:agree:

How do you mean?

[CropleyWasGod]

http://news.stv.tv/scotland/west-cen...ticketus-deal/ (http://news.stv.tv/scotland/west-central/301435-rangers-administrators-lose-in-court-move-to-ditch-244m-ticketus-deal/)

"Duff and Phelps had claimed that the deal would hamper their attempts to sell the club."

Hardly a solid legal position to get out of a legally binding transaction.


"The administrators QC David Sellar had claimed in court that two of the four indicative bids for the club were dependent on the Ticketus deal being breached."

So what?


Are those the best arguments they could come up with?

TBH, it was the only ones. I kind-of understood their motivation, but never got the justice of it. Now they've had their justice, and had to swallow the costs as a result.

[jgl07]

It means that if the Huns somehow manage to wriggle out of administration with a deal from the notoriously non-football-dealing HMRC then they will get no income from the first 20 odd thousand season tickets each season for the next 3.

If they are forced to liquidate and emerge as Phoenix Huns, the position is much less clear. You would imagine a newco selling its STs would not be bound by a deal done with the original Huns. However, there is some speculation that Ticketus have something up their sleeves, possibly tying the deal to whoever takes ownership of Ibrox rather than the football club. Almost certain to go through the courts for a protracted period. :wink:

The report suggested that the Judge declined to give Duff and Phelps an indication that they could renage on the Ticketus deal and effectively convert them into creditors.

The Judge also denied Ticketus preferential creditor status.

It looks more and more like liquidation is the only possible outcome.

Rangers have been pulling in crowds of 40,000 to 45,000 and losing £1 million a month. If they continue to attract that level of support they will effectively be on crowds of 15,000 to 20,000. That will not be enough to keep the lights on.

The only possible way that they could come anywhere near breaking even would be regular appearances in the Champions' League group stages. That is already out for next season. The season after Scotland drops to one CL place and that is likely to involve three qualifying rounds starting in mid-July.

There is a way for the SPL to rid themselves of the problem of dealing with the mess that will undoubtedly follow. That will be to deduct sufficient points from Rangers (pre-split) to ensure that they will be relegated. There are more than enough justifications for this action.

It will then be an issue for the SFL to sort out!

[jgl07]

http://news.stv.tv/scotland/west-cen...ticketus-deal/ (http://news.stv.tv/scotland/west-central/301435-rangers-administrators-lose-in-court-move-to-ditch-244m-ticketus-deal/)

"Duff and Phelps had claimed that the deal would hamper their attempts to sell the club."

Hardly a solid legal position to get out of a legally binding transaction.


"The administrators QC David Sellar had claimed in court that two of the four indicative bids for the club were dependent on the Ticketus deal being breached."


Would that include the Blue *****s consortium, that includes Ticketus?

[Dan Sarf]

Judge rules Rangers deal with Ticketus must stand


A judge has ruled the controversial season ticket deal Craig Whyte used to buy Rangers must stand, dealing a blow to attempts to sell the club.


Rangers administrators Duff and Phelps had sought directions from the Court of Session in Edinburgh over whether they could renege on the agreement and not pay Ticketus the proceeds of sales.
But Lord Hodge ruled he would not give the administrators guidance on what could be done in this case.
However, the judge declined to grant Ticketus preferential creditor status as Rangers seek to exit administration under a creditor voluntary agreement.
Rangers owner Craig Whyte sold off 100,000 season tickets at Ibrox until 2015 for �24.4m which effectively funded his takeover as he used part of the cash to wipe off the club�s �18m debt to Lloyds Banking Group.
Duff and Phelps had claimed that the deal would hamper their attempts to sell the club.
Their QC David Sellar had claimed in court that two of the four indicative bids for the club were dependent on the Ticketus deal being breached.

[CropleyWasGod]

Would that include the Blue *****s consortium, that includes Ticketus?

I doubt it.

The Blue Knights bid still represents Ticketus' best chance of getting their money back.

[green glory]

@TonyMcKelvie: The Memorandum of Offer issued (by Admins) invited interested parties to assume that "no future revenue needs to be committed to Ticketus"

[CropleyWasGod]

@TonyMcKelvie: The Memorandum of Offer issued (by Admins) invited interested parties to assume that "no future revenue needs to be committed to Ticketus"

:rolleyes:

Only a fule wood do that.

[Newry Hibs]

Maybe I'm not up with all the legalise - but the report suggests that the judge is not giving an opinion. Is that the same as giving the opinion that the Ticketus deal is valid?

[jgl07]

Maybe I'm not up with all the legalise - but the report suggests that the judge is not giving an opinion. Is that the same as giving the opinion that the Ticketus deal is valid?

No he is refusing to say that it is invalid.

[Newry Hibs]

No he is refusing to say that it is invalid.

So given what the admins were asking about how the offers may be affected, they accept that Ticketus are owed the cash (dependant on liquidation etc etc).

[johnrebus]

Judge rules Rangers deal with Ticketus must stand


A judge has ruled the controversial season ticket deal Craig Whyte used to buy Rangers must stand, dealing a blow to attempts to sell the club.


Rangers administrators Duff and Phelps had sought directions from the Court of Session in Edinburgh over whether they could renege on the agreement and not pay Ticketus the proceeds of sales.
But Lord Hodge ruled he would not give the administrators guidance on what could be done in this case.
However, the judge declined to grant Ticketus preferential creditor status as Rangers seek to exit administration under a creditor voluntary agreement.
Rangers owner Craig Whyte sold off 100,000 season tickets at Ibrox until 2015 for �24.4m which effectively funded his takeover as he used part of the cash to wipe off the club�s �18m debt to Lloyds Banking Group.
Duff and Phelps had claimed that the deal would hamper their attempts to sell the club.
Their QC David Sellar had claimed in court that two of the four indicative bids for the club were dependent on the Ticketus deal being breached.





Nice work if you can get it, eh?

So, the old boy just says, 'thats for me to know and you to find out'?


:confused:

[CropleyWasGod]

Nice work if you can get it, eh?

So, the old boy just says, 'thats for me to know and you to find out'?


:confused:

More like... I have no opinion, and it's not my place to have one.

[PatHead]

Oh how I have missed this thread whilst it has been all quiet on the Rangers front. Poor CWG must have developed a twitch through withdrawal symptoms, better now eh!

Favourite quote is

In his decision, Lord Hodge noted: "I am informed that the expected income flow from the sale of the season tickets is likely to represent about 60% of the cash flow of Rangers in those seasons."

So they are skint for the foreseeable especially if the "10" have the gonads to push through the changes.

[johnrebus]

More like... I have no opinion, and it's not my place to have one.


So, if I'm understanding this correctly, then D&P could just tell Ticketus to bolt - and then wait for the inevitable court case?

:cb

[Seveno]

More like... I have no opinion, and it's not my place to have one.

Or to put it another way ' see you both back in Court another day'.

An option being for D&P to rip up the contract and challenge Ticketless to sue. The old Hodgie lets us know the real answer.

Oh, and welcome back from your temporary retirement CWG.

[CropleyWasGod]

So, if I'm understanding this correctly, then D&P could just tell Ticketus to bolt - and then wait for the inevitable court case?

:cb

Yeah. That's about it.

[CropleyWasGod]

Or to put it another way ' see you both back in Court another day'.

An option being for D&P to rip up the contract and challenge Ticketless to sue. The old Hodgie lets us know the real answer.

Oh, and welcome back from your temporary retirement CWG.

Cheers.

Thing is, I'm off on holiday in 10 days... and there's F all chance of this being tied up before then. Do you think you guys will be okay on your own? :cb

[Seveno]

Cheers.

Thing is, I'm off on holiday in 10 days... and there's F all chance of this being tied up before then. Do you think you guys will be okay on your own? :cb

I don't recall seeing a Holiday Request From being submitted to this forum.

Any of the rest of you guys seen it ?

[CropleyWasGod]

I don't recall seeing a Holiday Request From being submitted to this forum.

Any of the rest of you guys seen it ?

Um.. it's actually a business trip. Honest. Egypt... um... seeing if I can interest any dodgy sheikhs, I mean oil barons, in RFC or HOMFC. Should be able to drum up a couple of camels, no?

[Hibs Class]

Can someone please post a link to the cartoon that was on here a week or two back - the two characters talking about we are the people etc. I know it's somewhere on this thread but hopefully I can be saved trawling through 130 pages. Cheers.

[PatHead]

Can someone please post a link to the cartoon that was on here a week or two back - the two characters talking about we are the people etc. I know it's somewhere on this thread but hopefully I can be saved trawling through 130 pages. Cheers.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H8x_59EjZOs&feature=youtube_gdata_player

Beware of language though!

[stokesmessiah]

So CWG in your learned opinion where does this leave us?

I am guessing as its not good news for them that its another step towards oblivion?

[blindsummit]

Um.. it's actually a business trip. Honest. Egypt... um... seeing if I can interest any dodgy sheikhs, I mean oil barons, in RFC or HOMFC. Should be able to drum up a couple of camels, no?

There's no need to get the hump :greengrin

[Seveno]

There's no need to get the hump :greengrin

He's off on some pyramid selling scheme with his mate, wee Mr Whyte.

[CropleyWasGod]

So CWG in your learned opinion where does this leave us?

I am guessing as its not good news for them that its another step towards oblivion?

IMO, I think it would have been a major surprise if that case had gone the other way. Ticketus would have slapped an appeal in straight away, on the grounds that the Judge was an apron-wearing Grand Wizard.

It isn't good news for them, but in many ways there's not much change from where we were. If we believe the press stories, two bidders will probably drop out now.

But the two who remain will rely on a CVA. I am not sure how Ticketus would view that, but HMRC are still the key there.

And the BTC has still to rear its head. Each week, each Court case, brings us closer to that.

[Hibs Class]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H8x_59EjZOs&feature=youtube_gdata_player

Beware of language though!

Magic - cheers.

[ancienthibby]

How do you mean?

Because, Mr Headmaster Sir:greengrin, I was following the line put out by Paul Murray that the size of RFC's debt was immaterial - it would simply change the pence in the pound to the creditors.

So, today's ruling would suggest that the ST sales are NOT going to be clawed back into the ultimate available pool of reddies. So, even less than thought for a creditor distribution.

Us, as taxpayers, via the HMRC therefore take the biggest hit?

Ain't that the case, BigBossMan?:greengrin

[PatHead]

Cheers.

Thing is, I'm off on holiday in 10 days... and there's F all chance of this being tied up before then. Do you think you guys will be okay on your own? :cb

Can you at least promise to get all your coffee flasks in a line and stay on the keyboard updating us 24/7 until the holiday?

BTW do they not have computers in Egypt? What about getting a blackberry thingy before you go you selfish person?

God I'm getting withdrawal symptoms already!

[CropleyWasGod]

Because, Mr Headmaster Sir:greengrin, I was following the line put out by Paul Murray that the size of RFC's debt was immaterial - it would simply change the pence in the pound to the creditors.

So, today's ruling would suggest that the ST sales are NOT going to be clawed back into the ultimate available pool of reddies. So, even less than thought for a creditor distribution.

Us, as taxpayers, via the HMRC therefore take the biggest hit?

Ain't that the case, BigBossMan?:greengrin

Sorry, my question wasn't meant to sound argumentative. It's Friday, and my brain is slipping into the weekend. :greengrin

Okay, I can follow that logic. But it assumes that the BTC is going against RFC. If it doesn't, and HMRC still resist the CVA, then liquidation will follow. We will get most of our £15m cash from the property proceeds.

If it goes against RFC, then we will get a bigger percentage share of the property proceeds, as we will be by far the biggest creditor ...but of course we will get nowhere near the full whack.

[s.a.m]

Does it make any difference, from the point of view of the football authorities, or HMRC, whether Rangers, a) find a way out of administration before being hit by BTC case loss, and having to do it again, or b) are hit by the (potential) loss of the case during the current administration period?
If you see what I mean.

[ancienthibby]

Sorry, my question wasn't meant to sound argumentative. It's Friday, and my brain is slipping into the weekend. :greengrin

Okay, I can follow that logic. But it assumes that the BTC is going against RFC. If it doesn't, and HMRC still resist the CVA, then liquidation will follow. We will get most of our £15m cash from the property proceeds.

If it goes against RFC, then we will get a bigger percentage share of the property proceeds, as we will be by far the biggest creditor ...but of course we will get nowhere near the full whack.

Never took it that way - like most posters in this thread, I am punching in the dark!:agree:

The bit about the property proceeds, though, is just not likely is it, since the planning restrictions on both properties in Govan and Milngavie are likely to deter any potential bidder. AFAIK no potential bidder has suggested that he would buy the assets on that basis.:confused:

[ancient hibee]

I was offered 20 camels for my wife once but I insisted on Benson and Hedges.

[IWasThere2016]

More doubt and uncertainty and time lost for the Burrent Cants! :thumbsup: Hopefully one or two parties walk away! GTF! :bye:

[CropleyWasGod]

Never took it that way - like most posters in this thread, I am punching in the dark!:agree:

The bit about the property proceeds, though, is just not likely is it, since the planning restrictions on both properties in Govan and Milngavie are likely to deter any potential bidder. AFAIK no potential bidder has suggested that he would buy the assets on that basis.:confused:

Yeah, I have to admit to being in the dark about the property values.

So, going back to your original thoughts, you reckon that it would have been in our (as in the taxpayers) interests to have the Ticketus deal set aside?

Interesting moral dilemma there, grasshopper.....

[Sylar]

So, seeing as they're now tied to the Ticketus deal, if the administrators take the decision to liquidate the club, would a Phoenix Rangers then be tied to the deal, or would it legally be null and void? Would the administrators consider this avenue as a potentially "worthwhile risk"?

Apologies if this has been addressed earlier.

[ancient hibee]

Because, Mr Headmaster Sir:greengrin, I was following the line put out by Paul Murray that the size of RFC's debt was immaterial - it would simply change the pence in the pound to the creditors.

So, today's ruling would suggest that the ST sales are NOT going to be clawed back into the ultimate available pool of reddies. So, even less than thought for a creditor distribution.

Us, as taxpayers, via the HMRC therefore take the biggest hit?

Ain't that the case, BigBossMan?:greengrin

A slight confusion I feel -Ticketus will continue to get the season ticket money.This will be a better deal for tax payers as Ticketus will not rank for a divi from a CVA and as the season ticket money is future income it would not have been available to bolster the CVA funds anyway.I think:greengrin

[jgl07]

So, seeing as they're now tied to the Ticketus deal, if the administrators take the decision to liquidate the club, would a Phoenix Rangers then be tied to the deal, or would it legally be null and void? Would the administrators consider this avenue as a potentially "worthwhile risk"?

Apologies if this has been addressed earlier.

If Rangers are liquidated, they not longer exist. They cease to be.

A new club is formed and maybe buys some assets from the liquidators (Ibrox, Club Crest, etc) and somehow wangle their way back into the League (SFL3).

Ticketus get nothing except what they can chase Craig Whyte for. Best of luck with that one!

[ancienthibby]

Yeah, I have to admit to being in the dark about the property values.

So, going back to your original thoughts, you reckon that it would have been in our (as in the taxpayers) interests to have the Ticketus deal set aside?

Interesting moral dilemma there, grasshopper.....

Humble grasshopper thinks that it would be absolute anathema to find that the T deal was set aside and that Lloyds/HBOS (who were the most profligate lender to SDM) would still benefit with their loans repaid.

Most especially if HMRC were to be stuffed.

Pins and doll are to hand.:greengrin

[ballengeich]

If Rangers are liquidated, they not longer exist. They cease to be.

A new club is formed and maybe buys some assets from the liquidators (Ibrox, Club Crest, etc) and somehow wangle their way back into the League (SFL3).

Ticketus get nothing except what they can chase Craig Whyte for. Best of luck with that one!

I read a claim on another forum that legislation comes into force on 6th April which makes it more difficult for a newco to set up and ignore the debts of its predecessor. The writer suggested that it could therefore be to Rangers' advantage to go into liquidation before the end of the current tax year. Does anyone know whether that is based on fact?

[ballengeich]

http://www.rangers.co.uk/news/football-news/article/2690528

Is this the administrators claiming that the judgment means they can tear the Ticketus deal up?

[BarneyK]

If anyone can make sense of it. Here's the report from Lord Whatsit -

http://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/opinions/2012CSOH55.html

[RyeSloan]

http://www.rangers.co.uk/news/football-news/article/2690528

Is this the administrators claiming that the judgment means they can tear the Ticketus deal up?

I think it means that they still have that as an option...the implicaitons of them doing so are not clarified though!

Interesting this part though:

Lord Hodge has stated Ticketus has what are known as contractual rights, essentially a contract between the Club and themselves.

So this is quite clear in stating the club have a contract with Ticketus...the club of course at the time being owned by SDM. The same SDM who seems to be claiming he knew nothing much about anything.

[hibs0666]

I think it means that they still have that as an option...the implicaitons of them doing so are not clarified though!

Interesting this part though:

Lord Hodge has stated Ticketus has what are known as contractual rights, essentially a contract between the Club and themselves.

So this is quite clear in stating the club have a contract with Ticketus...the club of course at the time being owned by SDM. The same SDM who seems to be claiming he knew nothing much about anything.

I think the judge dude is saying that the administrator's have the right to breach that contract. I dinnae have a sccoby what that means if Ticketus were to sue for such a breach.

The shambles continues!

[NGH]

If Ticketus are just a creditor like HMRC etc would they not now be the largest single creditor (until the outcome of the 'big' tax case at least). If the debt owed is larger than 25% they can block a CVA if they think they would get more from liquidation. It all makes a deal with the Blue knights more likely I would think.

[green glory]

Super A*sehole's looking a bit blotchy on BBC Scotland news. Must be all the excitement.

[Spike Mandela]

I think the judge dude is saying that the administrator's have the right to breach that contract. I dinnae have a sccoby what that means if Ticketus were to sue for such a breach.

The shambles continues!

Administrators will tell prospective buyers they have the right to breach the contract. The highly paid judge has basically spent days deliberating and then sat on the fence with a giant fence post up his erchie.

[BarneyK]

If Ticketus are just a creditor like HMRC etc would they not now be the largest single creditor (until the outcome of the 'big' tax case at least). If the debt owed is larger than 25% they can block a CVA if they think they would get more from liquidation. It all makes a deal with the Blue knights more likely I would think.

Surely Ticketus are not actually a creditor? Instead they own a shedload of tickets which the Huns are obliged to sell on their behalf before forwarding on the cash. In which case they are owed nowt but future sales. Nothing now anyway. Well, certainly not the full 25 million.

[ehf]

The decision is a major victory for the Administrators. It's all here at the end:

[62] I therefore summarise my views as follows: (i) an administrator must perform his functions in the interests of the company's creditors as a whole (subject to the qualification in paragraph 3(4) of Schedule B 1 which is not relevant in this case); (ii) where the company in administration is insolvent, an administrator may have to decline to perform a contractual obligation of the company in pursuit of the statutory objective or objectives in his proposals if that is in the interests of the company's creditors as a whole; (iii) should he do so, the court would not, absent exceptional circumstances, force the company to perform those contractual obligations to the detriment of the creditors as a whole; (iv) the court has power to interfere under paragraph 74 of Schedule B1 if the administrator's decision is conspicuously unfair to a particular contractor or creditor; but (v) treating unsecured creditors in accordance with their legal rights in an insolvency would not of itself involve such unfairness.

Conclusion

[63] I conclude that the legal nature of the rights which Ticketus has in the Ibrox stadium, the season tickets for that stadium and the proceeds of future sales of the season tickets are purely personal contractual rights. In relation to the second alternative direction I refer the administrators to my discussion in paragraphs [38] to [62] above.

Lord Hodge's refusal to give directions is merely a technicality. In essence he is saying:

- Ticketus have no security (they argued they had a trust over the future income but that is not possible in Scots law)

- the Administrators can break the contract and the Court will let them.

So it's £24 million back into RFC at the expense of Ticketus. They should have taken Scots law advice on the deal and got security over the stadium.

[greenginger]

Lord Hodge judgment is too much info for a Friday night or any other time for that matter, but one Clause seems to jump out of the text.


Clause 36 states Ticketus rights would " prevail a CVA or a winding up order "


I think Duff and Duffer are ,in football terminology, trying to take some positives out of a 6 - nil home defeat. :confused:

[BarneyK]

The decision is a major victory for the Administrators. It's all here at the end:

[62] I therefore summarise my views as follows: (i) an administrator must perform his functions in the interests of the company's creditors as a whole (subject to the qualification in paragraph 3(4) of Schedule B 1 which is not relevant in this case); (ii) where the company in administration is insolvent, an administrator may have to decline to perform a contractual obligation of the company in pursuit of the statutory objective or objectives in his proposals if that is in the interests of the company's creditors as a whole; (iii) should he do so, the court would not, absent exceptional circumstances, force the company to perform those contractual obligations to the detriment of the creditors as a whole; (iv) the court has power to interfere under paragraph 74 of Schedule B1 if the administrator's decision is conspicuously unfair to a particular contractor or creditor; but (v) treating unsecured creditors in accordance with their legal rights in an insolvency would not of itself involve such unfairness.
I conclude that the legal nature of the rights which Ticketus has in the Ibrox stadium, the season tickets for that stadium and the pro.

Aren't Rangers only insolvent inasmuch as they choose to be. What if they were to reduce their playing squad and operate within a 2k a week wage cap, would they then not be able to break even? This is of course assuming a CVA had dealt with their outstanding debt. All I know is that they would [I]choose[I] not to, as that would mean they would have to compete on a level playing field with the rest of us. And they would never ever consider doing that. As the media keep telling us...we NEED a strong Rangers. Aye right.

[blackpoolhibs]

Aren't Rangers only insolvent inasmuch as they choose to be. What if they were to reduce their playing squad and operate within a 2k a week wage cap, would they then not be able to break even? This is of course assuming a CVA had dealt with their outstanding debt. All I know is that they would [I]choose[I] not to, as that would mean they would have to compete on a level playing field with the rest of us. And they would never ever consider doing that. As the media keep telling us...we NEED a strong Rangers. Aye right.

Thats a question no media person seems prepared to ask, and one rangers dont want to do. They'd rather pump the taxman and anyone else for that matter, start again with no debt and continue on their merry way.

Thats why it must not be allowed to happen.

[matty_f]

Aren't Rangers only insolvent inasmuch as they choose to be. What if they were to reduce their playing squad and operate within a 2k a week wage cap, would they then not be able to break even? This is of course assuming a CVA had dealt with their outstanding debt. All I know is that they would [I]choose[I] not to, as that would mean they would have to compete on a level playing field with the rest of us. And they would never ever consider doing that. As the media keep telling us...we NEED a strong Rangers. Aye right.


That's a great point :agree:

I said it as soon as the administrators went in and never sacked a load of folk straight away as other clubs seem to do.

There is a point about 'maximising revenue' by keeping a strong squad, but at the end of the day if I was a creditor I'd be asking why they need players on however many grand a week when most of the other SPL clubs put out teams on a fraction of that budget.

Rangers' status etc should not come into it. The administrators should not even think about a 'speculate to accumulate' strategy of hoping they get good prize money through a high league position, that's absurd. They should budget to the worst case scenario and fit the wages etc around that.

[hughio]

I read it as saying the administrators can renege on the Ticketus deal if its in the best interests of the creditors.
So its a sort of victory for Ticketus but they can still be shafted for their £24M investment unless they pull off the winning bid.
:cb

[CropleyWasGod]

Aren't Rangers only insolvent inasmuch as they choose to be. What if they were to reduce their playing squad and operate within a 2k a week wage cap, would they then not be able to break even? This is of course assuming a CVA had dealt with their outstanding debt. All I know is that they would [I]choose[I] not to, as that would mean they would have to compete on a level playing field with the rest of us. And they would never ever consider doing that. As the media keep telling us...we NEED a strong Rangers. Aye right.

Rangers are insolvent, whether they like it or not. They can't pay their debts as they fall due, which is one of the definitions of insolvency. Even if they reduced their wage bill as you suggest, it would be a long time before they paid off even the current HMRC debt of £15m.

[CropleyWasGod]

That's a great point :agree:

I said it as soon as the administrators went in and never sacked a load of folk straight away as other clubs seem to do.

There is a point about 'maximising revenue' by keeping a strong squad, but at the end of the day if I was a creditor I'd be asking why they need players on however many grand a week when most of the other SPL clubs put out teams on a fraction of that budget.

Rangers' status etc should not come into it. The administrators should not even think about a 'speculate to accumulate' strategy of hoping they get good prize money through a high league position, that's absurd. They should budget to the worst case scenario and fit the wages etc around that.

The answer would be just as the admins have been saying. Higher paid players increase the value of the business to be sold on. It's not about the future trading... they know they couldn't sustain that. It's about selling off a high-value asset for as high a price as possible, thereby maximising the return to current creditors.

[Hibernia&Alba]

Rangers are insolvent, whether they like it or not. They can't pay their debts as they fall due, which is one of the definitions of insolvency. Even if they reduced their wage bill as you suggest, it would be a long time before they paid off even the current HMRC debt of £15m.


There is nobody sniffing glue at Ibrox :faf:



http://youtu.be/H8x_59EjZOs

[hibs0666]

Looks like a carefully considered response to the Ticketus judgement from Parkhead...

Statement from Parkhead (http://i25.photobucket.com/albums/c77/Lennox_1967/JELLYANDICECREAMWHENRANGERSDIE.gif)

[BarneyK]

Rangers are insolvent, whether they like it or not. They can't pay their debts as they fall due, which is one of the definitions of insolvency. Even if they reduced their wage bill as you suggest, it would be a long time before they paid off even the current HMRC debt of £15m.

And yet they intend to push a CVA and come out the other end debt free and continuing to massively overspend. It is cheating plain and simple. They know it, we know it, the SPL and the SFA know it, and the media know it. I would like to see this wage cap implemented on them as a punishment, regardless of whether it pays their bills or not. And while we're about it, same thing applies to that other mob roond Gorgie way.

[CropleyWasGod]

My tuppence worth on the Ticketus result, having re-read the actual decision, rather than the BBC/STV interpretation.....

The "contractual rights" to which everyone is referring are, IMO, first dibs on the ST sales. At the moment, assuming ST's aren't on sale yet for next season, that's nowt. Once they go on sale, then RFC would be due Ticketus £6m. It's that part that I reckon they are talking about setting aside.

Also, RFC are already due £6m for this season. That part would rank as an ordinary creditor alongside everybody else.

What would happen to the deal if and when RFC come out of admin? I reckon it would have to stand... the Judge only said that the admins have the right to break it, not the company once it is out of admin.

So... £6m gets put in the CVA just now, maybe £6m to follow soon.... and the remaining £12m stands as already contracted.

That's my take.... Cav, where are you? :rolleyes:

[BarneyK]

thereby maximising the return to current creditors.

If we are assuming the Creditors are looking at a massively diluted CVA (by the time the BTC is foisted on them), what concern is it to the Creditors how much the players are getting paid? Fair play if these players were to entice a multi-billionaire in to donate a substantial fortune to the Huns, but I just don't get it if the end game is a CVA. :confused:

[CropleyWasGod]

And yet they intend to push a CVA and come out the other end debt free and continuing to massively overspend. It is cheating plain and simple. They know it, we know it, the SPL and the SFA know it, and the media know it. I would like to see this wage cap implemented on them as a punishment, regardless of whether it pays their bills or not. And while we're about it, same thing applies to that other mob roond Gorgie way.

If they continue to overspend once they are out of administration, they will be insolvent again pretty quickly.

[BarneyK]

If they continue to overspend once they are out of administration, they will be insolvent again pretty quickly.

Aye. I keep going back to Paul Murray's assertion that he doesn't want to have to buy a whole new squad come the summer, that he wants the current players to remain at Rangers. How does he intend managing that one without overspending again? Can they not just die already, my heed is burstin' wi it all :greengrin

[CropleyWasGod]

If we are assuming the Creditors are looking at a massively diluted CVA (by the time the BTC is foisted on them), what concern is it to the Creditors how much the players are getting paid? Fair play if these players were to entice a multi-billionaire in to donate a substantial fortune to the Huns, but I just don't get it if the end game is a CVA. :confused:

The amount of the wages isn't a concern, but the value of the squad is. If a buyer is going to pay more for a better squad, then of course that is better for the creditors.

[CropleyWasGod]

Aye. I keep going back to Paul Murray's assertion that he doesn't want to have to buy a whole new squad come the summer, that he wants the current players to remain at Rangers. How does he intend managing that one without overspending again? Can they not just die already, my heed is burstin' wi it all :greengrin

... F that. What would I do with my Hibs.net then? talk about fitba? :cb

[ehf]

Lord Hodge judgment is too much info for a Friday night or any other time for that matter, but one Clause seems to jump out of the text.


Clause 36 states Ticketus rights would " prevail a CVA or a winding up order "


I think Duff and Duffer are ,in football terminology, trying to take some positives out of a 6 - nil home defeat. :confused:





Sadly not: that would have been the position had there been an effective trust but there isn't.

[ehf]

My tuppence worth on the Ticketus result, having re-read the actual decision, rather than the BBC/STV interpretation.....

The "contractual rights" to which everyone is referring are, IMO, first dibs on the ST sales. At the moment, assuming ST's aren't on sale yet for next season, that's nowt. Once they go on sale, then RFC would be due Ticketus £6m. It's that part that I reckon they are talking about setting aside.

Also, RFC are already due £6m for this season. That part would rank as an ordinary creditor alongside everybody else.

What would happen to the deal if and when RFC come out of admin? I reckon it would have to stand... the Judge only said that the admins have the right to break it, not the company once it is out of admin.

So... £6m gets put in the CVA just now, maybe £6m to follow soon.... and the remaining £12m stands as already contracted.

That's my take.... Cav, where are you? :rolleyes:

Lord Hodge has effectively given the Administrators licence to break the contract: that would bring it to an end and Ticketus rank as an ordinary creditor.RFC (or, more likely, Cheating Hun Newco) then have enuncumbered rights to future ST income.

[grunt]

Not £24m - it's now £30m paid by Ticketus.
And these guys are investment managers???

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-17489451

[CropleyWasGod]

Lord Hodge has effectively given the Administrators licence to break the contract: that would bring it to an end and Ticketus rank as an ordinary creditor.RFC (or, more likely, Cheating Hun Newco) then have enuncumbered rights to future ST income.

If Ticketus are part of the Blue Knights deal, though, they will get that cash back in other ways. They will probably charge the BK a ridiculous rate of interest.

[BarneyK]

If Ticketus are part of the Blue Knights deal, though, they will get that cash back in other ways. They will probably charge the BK a ridiculous rate of interest.

It's a surreal situation, right enough, one where Ticketus are complicit in ripping themselves off to the tune of £30 million.

[down-the-slope]

Look who cares about the fine detail right now...there is Bugg*r all chance of accounts / out of admin in the next 8 days now...so no Huns / NewCo Huns in Europe next year...

Thats another financial torpedo in them sorted....

Ticketas deal is an odd one due to them being deffered creditors...so they can't just be stiffed with a CVA like others as the debt (or most of it is not due)...would love to know just how its structured as if its well done then whoever playes at Ibrox next 3 years has in effect onlt 27,000 seats to sell....that should help level the playing field a bit :greengrin

[ehf]

If Ticketus are part of the Blue Knights deal, though, they will get that cash back in other ways. They will probably charge the BK a ridiculous rate of interest.

Ticketus were the BK's trump card until today but they're superfluous now as their contract is worthless: the BKs don't need them and Ticketus donb't need the BKs - they will now concentrate on suing their lawyers for negligence.

[PaulSmith]

Ticketus were the BK's trump card until today but they're superfluous now as their contract is worthless: the BKs don't need them and Ticketus donb't need the BKs - they will now concentrate on suing their lawyers for negligence.

I'm not sure that the lawyers firm would be found liable and ticketus certainly wouldn't be able to get their £30m back from them.
They will however go through the due legal process to ensure that Rangers 1874 pay up.
"Ticketus don't do walking away"

[CropleyWasGod]

Ticketus were the BK's trump card until today but they're superfluous now as their contract is worthless: the BKs don't need them and Ticketus donb't need the BKs - they will now concentrate on suing their lawyers for negligence.

They need their cash, no?

[TornadoHibby]

It's a surreal situation, right enough, one where Ticketus are complicit in ripping themselves off to the tune of £30 million.

A juxtaposition? :dunno:

[TornadoHibby]

I'm not sure that the lawyers firm would be found liable and ticketus certainly wouldn't be able to get their £30m back from them.
They will however go through the due legal process to ensure that Rangers 1874 pay up.
"Ticketus don't do walking away"

I imagine that whoever didn't attend properly to getting the RFC due diligence & credit checks done accurately will be in the firing line unless Ticketus knew what the position with RFC was when the deal was signed! :rolleyes:

[ehf]

I'm not sure that the lawyers firm would be found liable and ticketus certainly wouldn't be able to get their £30m back from them.
They will however go through the due legal process to ensure that Rangers 1874 pay up.
"Ticketus don't do walking away"

There are two possibilities:

1. Ticketus used their usual English lawyers to do the deal and those lawyers did not recommend getting Scottish legal advice. If so, those English lawyers were negligent.

2. They did get Scottish advice, in which case the Scottish lawyers concerned failed to explain what would happen in the event of RFC going into administration, so were negligent.

Either way, the lawyers PI insurers will have to pay out.

[ehf]

They need their cash, no?

Ticketus are not going to chuck any more cash at Rangers now: their contract is worthless.

[CropleyWasGod]

There are two possibilities:

1. Ticketus used their usual English lawyers to do the deal and those lawyers did not recommend getting Scottish legal advice. If so, those English lawyers were negligent.

2. They did get Scottish advice, in which case the Scottish lawyers concerned failed to explain what would happen in the event of RFC going into administration, so were negligent.

Either way, the lawyers PI insurers will have to pay out.

Third scenario.....What if said lawyers did give that advice, and they went ahead anyway?

[CropleyWasGod]

Ticketus are not going to chuck any more cash at Rangers now: their contract is worthless.

My point, though, was that the Knights need Ticketus' cash. If what you're saying is correct, then the BK are struggling.

[ehf]

Third scenario.....What if said lawyers did give that advice, and they went ahead anyway?
Possible, but very unlikely.

[CropleyWasGod]

Ticketus are not going to chuck any more cash at Rangers now: their contract is worthless.

Their statement suggests they think otherwise:-

Ticketus responded to what it termed the "decision by Lord Hodge not to grant the administrators' request for the court to give them the right to tear up the ticket purchase agreement Ticketus has with Rangers Football Club".
In a statement, the firm said: "The legality of Ticketus' contract was not an issue.
"The court has made it clear today that the Ticketus contract cannot be breached unless there is substantial evidence that by doing so the administrators are able to significantly improve returns for creditors and improve the chance of returning the club to a going concern.
"Given the strength of the Blue Knights Consortium's bid, and Ticketus' role in this with its contract remaining valid and enforceable, we question the ability for this to happen."
The finance firm said it has a "duty to its investors to protect the investment that it currently has in the club" and said it would "do everything necessary to defend our position to ensure our contract is honoured and our investors' interests are protected".
On the Blue Knights Consortium bid, the statement added: "We are confident that the consortium's bid is in the best interests of the club, its fans and creditors by guaranteeing the future of Rangers and ending this period of uncertainty for the club.
"Collectively, the consortium has the ability to provide the club with the financial stability it needs to continue to perform at the highest level of competition.
"The consortium is committed to providing Rangers' loyal fan base with the transparency and disclosure it deserves, as well as exploring ways for fans to have a closer relationship with the management of their club".

[ehf]

My point, though, was that the Knights need Ticketus' cash. If what you're saying is correct, then the BK are struggling.

Correct, they're on a level playing field with other bidders. It's all down to the big tax case now, which means (as HMRC will defo win that) that the preferred bidder will have to ante up a minimum of 100 million.

[RyeSloan]

Their statement suggests they think otherwise:-

Ticketus responded to what it termed the "decision by Lord Hodge not to grant the administrators' request for the court to give them the right to tear up the ticket purchase agreement Ticketus has with Rangers Football Club".
In a statement, the firm said: "The legality of Ticketus' contract was not an issue.
"The court has made it clear today that the Ticketus contract cannot be breached unless there is substantial evidence that by doing so the administrators are able to significantly improve returns for creditors and improve the chance of returning the club to a going concern.
"Given the strength of the Blue Knights Consortium's bid, and Ticketus' role in this with its contract remaining valid and enforceable, we question the ability for this to happen."
The finance firm said it has a "duty to its investors to protect the investment that it currently has in the club" and said it would "do everything necessary to defend our position to ensure our contract is honoured and our investors' interests are protected".
On the Blue Knights Consortium bid, the statement added: "We are confident that the consortium's bid is in the best interests of the club, its fans and creditors by guaranteeing the future of Rangers and ending this period of uncertainty for the club.
"Collectively, the consortium has the ability to provide the club with the financial stability it needs to continue to perform at the highest level of competition.
"The consortium is committed to providing Rangers' loyal fan base with the transparency and disclosure it deserves, as well as exploring ways for fans to have a closer relationship with the management of their club".

No matter what Ticketus say you have to admit that they have got themselves into one hell of a hole here....this type of investment is meant to leverage a certain percentage return not leave them fighting over the carcass of a busted flush to try and salvage their up front cash.

[CropleyWasGod]

No matter what Ticketus say you have to admit that they have got themselves into one hell of a hole here....this type of investment is meant to leverage a certain percentage return not leave them fighting over the carcass of a busted flush to try and salvage their up front cash.

For sure.

The bit I like, though, is that they are determined to hold on to their contract. Which, of course, means more Court time. :agree:

[jgl07]

Scene:

Duff and Phelps Insolvency Practice

Cast:

Paul Clark of Duff and Phelps played by Michael Palin

Irate Customer played by John Cleese

The sketch:

An irate customer enters the insolvency practise

Irate customer: 'Ello, I wish to register a complaint.

(Clark does not respond.)

Irate customer: 'Ello, Miss?

Clark: What do you mean "miss"?

Irate customer: I'm sorry, I have a cold. I wish to make a complaint!

Clark: We're closin' for lunch.

Irate customer: Never mind that, my lad. I wish to complain about this football club what I purchased not half an hour ago from this very insolvency practice.

Clark: Oh yes, the, uh, the Bigotted Blue...What's,uh...What's wrong with it?

Irate customer: I'll tell you what's wrong with it, my lad. 'it's bust, that's what's wrong with it!

Clark: No, no, 'e's uh,...it's debt free.

Irate customer: Look, matey, I know a bankrupt club when I see one, and I'm looking at one right now.

(Irate customer brandishes portfolio of bank statements and documents)

Irate customer: As soon as a took the club home some guy in a bowler hat from HMRC demanded £70 million. Then some ticket tout said he was looking for most of our ticket money for the next four years. Finally some spiv came around saying he was the real owner of the club.

Clark: No no it's not bust, it's recovering'! Remarkable club, the Bigotted Blue, idn'it, ay? Beautiful away strip!

Irate customer: The away strip don't enter into it. It's totally insolvent.

Clark: Nononono, no, no! it's emerging from administration!

Irate customer: All right then, if it's recovering', I'll check it's bank balance! (shouting at the cage) 'Ello, Mister Broxi Bear! I've got a lovely cash injection for you if you show any sign of life...

(Clark hits the nudges the portfolio)

Owner: There, it moved!

Irate customer: No, he didn't, that was you hitting the portfolio!

Clark: I never!!

Irate customer: Yes, you did!

Clark: I never, never did anything...

Irate customer: (yelling and hitting the portfolio repeatedly) 'ELLO BROXI!!!!! Testing! Testing! Testing! Testing! This is your financial health checkl!

(Takes bank statement out of the portfolio and thumps it on the counter. Throws it up in the air and watches it fall to the floor and bounce up and down.)

Irate customer: Now that's what I call an insolvent club.

Clark: No, no.....No, it's got a short-term cash flow problem!

Irate customer: A short-term cash flow problem?!?

Clark: Yeah! You spent all the bank balance by payin' the wage bill, just as it was moving into profitability! Bigotted Blues eun of of cash easily, major.

Irate customer: Um...now look...now look, mate, I've definitely 'ad enough of this. That club is definitely bust, and when I purchased it not 'alf an hour ago, you assured me that its total lack of cash was due to it bein' tired and ****ged out following a prolonged title celebration party.

Clark: Well, he's...he's, ah...probably pining for the Boyne.

Irate customer: PININ' for the BOYNE?!?!?!? What kind of talk is that?, look, why was the bank account empty the moment I got 'im home?

Clark: The Bigotted Blue prefers running with limited financial reserves! Remarkable club, id'nit, squire? Lovely home strip!

Irate customent: Look, I took the liberty of examining the clubs' books when I got it home, and I discovered the only reason that it was still in the League was that it had been NAILED there.

(pause)

Clark: Well, o'course it was nailed there! If I hadn't nailed that bird down, it would have been out of the SPL, and legged in to the English Premier League and the Champions' League Group stages. VOOM! Feeweeweewee!

Irate customer: "VOOM"?!? Mate, this club wouldn't "voom" if you put four million volts through it! 'it's bleedin' demised!

Clark: No no! 'it's recovering!

Irate customer: 'it's not recovering'! 'it's passed on! This club is no more! It has ceased to be! 'It's expired and gone to meet its maker! 'it's a stiff! Bereft of life, 'it rests in peace! If you hadn't nailed 'im to the SPL 'it'd be pushing up the daisies! 'Is metabolic processes are now 'istory! 'it's off the twig! 'it's kicked the bucket, 'it's shuffled off 'is mortal coil, run down the curtain and joined the bleedin' choir invisibile!! THIS IS AN EX-CLUB!! If you hadn't cooked the books it would be in oblivion with Third Lanark, Aidrieonians and Gretna.

(pause)

Clark: Well, I'd better replace it, then. (he takes a quick peek behind the counter) Sorry squire, I've had a look 'round the back of the shop, and uh, we're right out of Blues.

Irate customent: I see. I see, I get the picture. Have you not got any Paranoid Greens?

Clark: No we've got no Greens at the moment.

(pause)

We're expecting a Manky Maroon in any day now

Irate customer: Pray, does it win things?

Clark: Nnnnot really.

Irate customer: WELL IT'S HARDLY A BLOODY REPLACEMENT, IS IT?!!???!!?

[monktonharp]

Scene:

Duff and Phelps Insolvency Practice

Cast:

Paul Clark of Duff and Phelps played by Michael Palin

Irate Customer played by John Cleese

The sketch:

An irate customer enters the insolvency practise

Irate customer: 'Ello, I wish to register a complaint.

(Clark does not respond.)

Irate customer: 'Ello, Miss?

Clark: What do you mean "miss"?

Irate customer: I'm sorry, I have a cold. I wish to make a complaint!

Clark: We're closin' for lunch.

Irate customer: Never mind that, my lad. I wish to complain about this football club what I purchased not half an hour ago from this very insolvency practice.

Clark: Oh yes, the, uh, the Bigotted Blue...What's,uh...What's wrong with it?

Irate customer: I'll tell you what's wrong with it, my lad. 'it's bust, that's what's wrong with it!

Clark: No, no, 'e's uh,...it's debt free.

Irate customer: Look, matey, I know a bankrupt club when I see one, and I'm looking at one right now.

(Irate customer brandishes portfolio of bank statements and documents)

Irate customer: As soon as a took the club home some guy in a bowler hat from HMRC demanded £70 million. Then some ticket tout said he was looking for most of our ticket money for the next four years. Finally some spiv came around saying he was the real owner of the club.

Clark: No no it's not bust, it's recovering'! Remarkable club, the Bigotted Blue, idn'it, ay? Beautiful away strip!

Irate customer: The away strip don't enter into it. It's totally insolvent.

Clark: Nononono, no, no! it's emerging from administration!

Irate customer: All right then, if it's recovering', I'll check it's bank balance! (shouting at the cage) 'Ello, Mister Broxi Bear! I've got a lovely cash injection for you if you show any sign of life...

(Clark hits the nudges the portfolio)

Owner: There, it moved!

Irate customer: No, he didn't, that was you hitting the portfolio!

Clark: I never!!

Irate customer: Yes, you did!

Clark: I never, never did anything...

Irate customer: (yelling and hitting the portfolio repeatedly) 'ELLO BROXI!!!!! Testing! Testing! Testing! Testing! This is your financial health checkl!

(Takes bank statement out of the portfolio and thumps it on the counter. Throws it up in the air and watches it fall to the floor and bounce up and down.)

Irate customer: Now that's what I call an insolvent club.

Clark: No, no.....No, it's got a short-term cash flow problem!

Irate customer: A short-term cash flow problem?!?

Clark: Yeah! You spent all the bank balance by payin' the wage bill, just as it was moving into profitability! Bigotted Blues eun of of cash easily, major.

Irate customer: Um...now look...now look, mate, I've definitely 'ad enough of this. That club is definitely bust, and when I purchased it not 'alf an hour ago, you assured me that its total lack of cash was due to it bein' tired and ****ged out following a prolonged title celebration party.

Clark: Well, he's...he's, ah...probably pining for the Boyne.

Irate customer: PININ' for the BOYNE?!?!?!? What kind of talk is that?, look, why was the bank account empty the moment I got 'im home?

Clark: The Bigotted Blue prefers running with limited financial reserves! Remarkable club, id'nit, squire? Lovely home strip!

Irate customent: Look, I took the liberty of examining the clubs' books when I got it home, and I discovered the only reason that it was still in the League was that it had been NAILED there.

(pause)

Clark: Well, o'course it was nailed there! If I hadn't nailed that bird down, it would have been out of the SPL, and legged in to the English Premier League and the Champions' League Group stages. VOOM! Feeweeweewee!

Irate customer: "VOOM"?!? Mate, this club wouldn't "voom" if you put four million volts through it! 'it's bleedin' demised!

Clark: No no! 'it's recovering!

Irate customer: 'it's not recovering'! 'it's passed on! This club is no more! It has ceased to be! 'It's expired and gone to meet its maker! 'it's a stiff! Bereft of life, 'it rests in peace! If you hadn't nailed 'im to the SPL 'it'd be pushing up the daisies! 'Is metabolic processes are now 'istory! 'it's off the twig! 'it's kicked the bucket, 'it's shuffled off 'is mortal coil, run down the curtain and joined the bleedin' choir invisibile!! THIS IS AN EX-CLUB!! If you hadn't cooked the books it would be in oblivion with Third Lanark, Aidrieonians and Gretna.

(pause)

Clark: Well, I'd better replace it, then. (he takes a quick peek behind the counter) Sorry squire, I've had a look 'round the back of the shop, and uh, we're right out of Blues.

Irate customent: I see. I see, I get the picture. Have you not got any Paranoid Greens?

Clark: No we've got no Greens at the moment.

(pause)

We're expecting a Manky Maroon in any day now

Irate customer: Pray, does it win things?

Clark: Nnnnot really.

Irate customer: WELL IT'S HARDLY A BLOODY REPLACEMENT, IS IT?!!???!!?f/kin fanstastic:hahaha:makes my amazonian parrot look decidedly chirpy!:faf:

[soupy]

Good stuff mate :-D

[BarneyK]

Scene:

Duff and Phelps Insolvency Practice

Cast:

Paul Clark of Duff and Phelps played by Michael Palin

Irate Customer played by John Cleese


Brilliant :thumbsup:

[Jack]

Ah, the famous Norwegian Blue. Tore André Flo. The three worst strikers in the SPL.

He was the start of it :-)

[BEEJ]

Scene:

Duff and Phelps Insolvency Practice

Cast:

Paul Clark of Duff and Phelps played by Michael Palin

Irate Customer played by John Cleese

............
:applause: Clever! :greengrin

[down-the-slope]

Look who cares about the fine detail right now...there is Bugg*r all chance of accounts / out of admin in the next 8 days now...so no Huns / NewCo Huns in Europe next year...

Thats another financial torpedo in them sorted....

Ticketas deal is an odd one due to them being deffered creditors...so they can't just be stiffed with a CVA like others as the debt (or most of it is not due)...would love to know just how its structured as if its well done then whoever playes at Ibrox next 3 years has in effect onlt 27,000 seats to sell....that should help level the playing field a bit :greengrin

Any comment on bit in bold :confused: it must make a difference to how things are treated - they have the right to sell seats in a stadium IN THE FUTURE....if that contract is legal then I can only see liquidation deal with it as a future liability...


End of latest BBC report on yesterdays court case makes great reading

If the preferred bidder cannot secure a deal with holders of 75% of the value of the debt, then there remains a possibility that the club could be liquidated. :greengrin

And remember Cragie boy is still adamant he is a preffered creditor...lots of money still to be made by lawyers :aok:

[ginger_rice]

"The consortium is committed to providing Rangers' loyal fan base

Didn't take them long to learn the "correct" terminology

[Caversham Green]

My tuppence worth on the Ticketus result, having re-read the actual decision, rather than the BBC/STV interpretation.....

The "contractual rights" to which everyone is referring are, IMO, first dibs on the ST sales. At the moment, assuming ST's aren't on sale yet for next season, that's nowt. Once they go on sale, then RFC would be due Ticketus £6m. It's that part that I reckon they are talking about setting aside.

Also, RFC are already due £6m for this season. That part would rank as an ordinary creditor alongside everybody else.

What would happen to the deal if and when RFC come out of admin? I reckon it would have to stand... the Judge only said that the admins have the right to break it, not the company once it is out of admin.

So... £6m gets put in the CVA just now, maybe £6m to follow soon.... and the remaining £12m stands as already contracted.

That's my take.... Cav, where are you? :rolleyes:

I'm staying out of it all. :wink:

Actually, I think the question was whether the Ticketus agreement should be considered a sale of "goods", whereby T already own the tickets despite the fact that they don't physically exist yet - a bit like wine en primeur I think - or an agreement to produce future goods - gimme £1,000 and I'll tarmac yer drive next month.

If it was the former there was nothing RFC could do to get the goods back short of repaying the whole sum, which we know they couldn't do. On the other hand, if RFC liquidated T were stuffed because the goods became worthless - thet's the investment risk, although I would surmise from the wording of the judgement that the tickets were for 'home games at Ibrox' rather than 'Rangers FC home games' so they'd be safe enough in the emergence of a phoenix company.

The judge appears to have decided on the latter, so it becomes more like a contract for future services and, as we already know, the administrators have the right to tear those up and T then become ordinary creditors to be considered with the others in a CVA. T's defence here seems to be that it cannot be in the interests of all of the creditors to introduce a massive new one, thereby diluting everyone's claim to a payout. The counter argument is that the business can be sold for more without the burden of the deferred income having been received pre-administration.

On a side issue, Para 16 in the judgement makes the point I alluded to in an earlier life - the lending of money by RFC to Wavetower was illegal because it was effectively financing the purchase of it's own shares. I was beginning to doubt my own sanity on that one because no-one else seems to have picked up on it.

[NAE NOOKIE]

Scene:

Duff and Phelps Insolvency Practice

Cast:

Paul Clark of Duff and Phelps played by Michael Palin

Irate Customer played by John Cleese

The sketch:

An irate customer enters the insolvency practise

Irate customer: 'Ello, I wish to register a complaint.

(Clark does not respond.)

Irate customer: 'Ello, Miss?

Clark: What do you mean "miss"?

Irate customer: I'm sorry, I have a cold. I wish to make a complaint!

Clark: We're closin' for lunch.

Irate customer: Never mind that, my lad. I wish to complain about this football club what I purchased not half an hour ago from this very insolvency practice.

Clark: Oh yes, the, uh, the Bigotted Blue...What's,uh...What's wrong with it?

Irate customer: I'll tell you what's wrong with it, my lad. 'it's bust, that's what's wrong with it!

Clark: No, no, 'e's uh,...it's debt free.

Irate customer: Look, matey, I know a bankrupt club when I see one, and I'm looking at one right now.

(Irate customer brandishes portfolio of bank statements and documents)

Irate customer: As soon as a took the club home some guy in a bowler hat from HMRC demanded £70 million. Then some ticket tout said he was looking for most of our ticket money for the next four years. Finally some spiv came around saying he was the real owner of the club.

Clark: No no it's not bust, it's recovering'! Remarkable club, the Bigotted Blue, idn'it, ay? Beautiful away strip!

Irate customer: The away strip don't enter into it. It's totally insolvent.

Clark: Nononono, no, no! it's emerging from administration!

Irate customer: All right then, if it's recovering', I'll check it's bank balance! (shouting at the cage) 'Ello, Mister Broxi Bear! I've got a lovely cash injection for you if you show any sign of life...

(Clark hits the nudges the portfolio)

Owner: There, it moved!

Irate customer: No, he didn't, that was you hitting the portfolio!

Clark: I never!!

Irate customer: Yes, you did!

Clark: I never, never did anything...

Irate customer: (yelling and hitting the portfolio repeatedly) 'ELLO BROXI!!!!! Testing! Testing! Testing! Testing! This is your financial health checkl!

(Takes bank statement out of the portfolio and thumps it on the counter. Throws it up in the air and watches it fall to the floor and bounce up and down.)

Irate customer: Now that's what I call an insolvent club.

Clark: No, no.....No, it's got a short-term cash flow problem!

Irate customer: A short-term cash flow problem?!?

Clark: Yeah! You spent all the bank balance by payin' the wage bill, just as it was moving into profitability! Bigotted Blues eun of of cash easily, major.

Irate customer: Um...now look...now look, mate, I've definitely 'ad enough of this. That club is definitely bust, and when I purchased it not 'alf an hour ago, you assured me that its total lack of cash was due to it bein' tired and ****ged out following a prolonged title celebration party.

Clark: Well, he's...he's, ah...probably pining for the Boyne.

Irate customer: PININ' for the BOYNE?!?!?!? What kind of talk is that?, look, why was the bank account empty the moment I got 'im home?

Clark: The Bigotted Blue prefers running with limited financial reserves! Remarkable club, id'nit, squire? Lovely home strip!

Irate customent: Look, I took the liberty of examining the clubs' books when I got it home, and I discovered the only reason that it was still in the League was that it had been NAILED there.

(pause)

Clark: Well, o'course it was nailed there! If I hadn't nailed that bird down, it would have been out of the SPL, and legged in to the English Premier League and the Champions' League Group stages. VOOM! Feeweeweewee!

Irate customer: "VOOM"?!? Mate, this club wouldn't "voom" if you put four million volts through it! 'it's bleedin' demised!

Clark: No no! 'it's recovering!

Irate customer: 'it's not recovering'! 'it's passed on! This club is no more! It has ceased to be! 'It's expired and gone to meet its maker! 'it's a stiff! Bereft of life, 'it rests in peace! If you hadn't nailed 'im to the SPL 'it'd be pushing up the daisies! 'Is metabolic processes are now 'istory! 'it's off the twig! 'it's kicked the bucket, 'it's shuffled off 'is mortal coil, run down the curtain and joined the bleedin' choir invisibile!! THIS IS AN EX-CLUB!! If you hadn't cooked the books it would be in oblivion with Third Lanark, Aidrieonians and Gretna.

(pause)

Clark: Well, I'd better replace it, then. (he takes a quick peek behind the counter) Sorry squire, I've had a look 'round the back of the shop, and uh, we're right out of Blues.

Irate customent: I see. I see, I get the picture. Have you not got any Paranoid Greens?

Clark: No we've got no Greens at the moment.

(pause)

We're expecting a Manky Maroon in any day now

Irate customer: Pray, does it win things?

Clark: Nnnnot really.

Irate customer: WELL IT'S HARDLY A BLOODY REPLACEMENT, IS IT?!!???!!?

:top marks

[johnrebus]

I'm staying out of it all. :wink:

Actually, I think the question was whether the Ticketus agreement should be considered a sale of "goods", whereby T already own the tickets despite the fact that they don't physically exist yet - a bit like wine en primeur I think - or an agreement to produce future goods - gimme £1,000 and I'll tarmac yer drive next month.

If it was the former there was nothing RFC could do to get the goods back short of repaying the whole sum, which we know they couldn't do. On the other hand, if RFC liquidated T were stuffed because the goods became worthless - thet's the investment risk, although I would surmise from the wording of the judgement that the tickets were for 'home games at Ibrox' rather than 'Rangers FC home games' so they'd be safe enough in the emergence of a phoenix company.

The judge appears to have decided on the latter, so it becomes more like a contract for future services and, as we already know, the administrators have the right to tear those up and T then become ordinary creditors to be considered with the others in a CVA. T's defence here seems to be that it cannot be in the interests of all of the creditors to introduce a massive new one, thereby diluting everyone's claim to a payout. The counter argument is that the business can be sold for more without the burden of the deferred income having been received pre-administration.

On a side issue, Para 16 in the judgement makes the point I alluded to in an earlier life - the lending of money by RFC to Wavetower was illegal because it was effectively financing the purchase of it's own shares. I was beginning to doubt my own sanity on that one because no-one else seems to have picked up on it.



But isn't that how the Glaziers bought Man Utd?

Whats the difference?


:confused:

[down-the-slope]

But isn't that how the Glaziers bought Man Utd?

Whats the difference?


:confused:


Nope they borrowed money from the market to buy Man U...This case is the club lending money to a 3rd party to buy shares in the club...

[Caversham Green]

But isn't that how the Glaziers bought Man Utd?

Whats the difference?


:confused:

As DTS says, they borrowed money externally in the first instance and used a very complicated finance structure to shift the debt back to the club. I remember seeing a diagram of the structure and almost understanding how it worked, but I wouldn't have a hope in hell of reproducing it now.

However, if Wee Craig had used another of his companies to lend money to Wavetower so they could buy RFC and (completely independently of course :fibber:) 'handle' RFC's future ST money there's a second layer built up which makes the financing of own shares rather less obvious. I'm not sure why he didn't do that unless he thought he just wouldn't get caught.

[down-the-slope]

As DTS says, they borrowed money externally in the first instance and used a very complicated finance structure to shift the debt back to the club. I remember seeing a diagram of the structure and almost understanding how it worked, but I wouldn't have a hope in hell of reproducing it now.

However, if Wee Craig had used another of his companies to lend money to Wavetower so they could buy RFC and (completely independently of course :fibber:) 'handle' RFC's future ST money there's a second layer built up which makes the financing of own shares rather less obvious. I'm not sure why he didn't do that unless he thought he just wouldn't get caught.

Indeed Cav...reckon he reached that point where individuals start to beleive they are made of Teflon...its why criminals get caught..they take more and more risks and think they are invincible.

Its also the case that sometimes the more brazen / big / obvious the scam the more often its got away with...

Just got to hope that UEFA want to use this as part of their drive for financial fair play / good governance :greengrin

[Don Giovanni]

Irate customer: As soon as a took the club home some guy in a bowler hat from HMRC demanded £70 million. Then some ticket tout said he was looking for most of our ticket money for the next four years. Finally some spiv came around saying he was the real owner of the club.





:thumbsup: Belter

Thought the quoted snippet above was right on the money (as it were).

[Seveno]

Can I respectfully suggest to our two accountancy experts, Cav and Cwg, that they are missing the point of the Ticketus involvement in the consortium bid.

Quiet simply, if they become joint owners of the club then they are effectively owing the money to themselves. Hey presto, all economic worries are gone in an instant.

Didn't you guys study Yamanomics ? :cb

[CropleyWasGod]

As DTS says, they borrowed money externally in the first instance and used a very complicated finance structure to shift the debt back to the club. I remember seeing a diagram of the structure and almost understanding how it worked, but I wouldn't have a hope in hell of reproducing it now.

However, if Wee Craig had used another of his companies to lend money to Wavetower so they could buy RFC and (completely independently of course :fibber:) 'handle' RFC's future ST money there's a second layer built up which makes the financing of own shares rather less obvious. I'm not sure why he didn't do that unless he thought he just wouldn't get caught.

It all goes back to my theory that he was gambling on getting CL money. If it hadn't been for Malmo, his plan was on the way to working. Nobody would have noticed because nobody would really have cared.

On the financing of own shares, it looks like you're being proved right on that. Or, at least, that's the line the admins are using in order to get CW out. I bow to you on that.... :not worth.... but don't tell ANYONE I have kow-towed to an auditor!!!

[CropleyWasGod]

Can I respectfully suggest to our two accountancy experts, Cav and Cwg, that they are missing the point of the Ticketus involvement in the consortium bid.

Quiet simply, if they become joint owners of the club then they are effectively owing the money to themselves. Hey presto, all economic worries are gone in an instant.

Didn't you guys study Yamanomics ? :cb

***ake.... you're right. 130-odd pages... as ever, it's the simple truth that wins out again. :rolleyes:

[CropleyWasGod]

Thought I would add my own praise to JGL for his dramatisation.

Superb, mate.... that alone makes this thread one for the vaults. :not worth

[blindsummit]

***ake.... you're right. 130-odd pages... as ever, it's the simple truth that wins out again. :rolleyes:

i think I suggested this strategy about 100 pages ago.........

[joe breezy]

http://blogs.channel4.com/alex-thomsons-view/succulent-lamb-menu-questions/1010

Right – let me make two things absolutely clear at the outset.

First, I am writing this imagining that one or two people outside Glasgow use the internet, so I might make some observations familiar to Clydeside surfers.
Second, this arises from my continuing investigation into Rangers which is still in early stages. That is to say, I am not investigating Celtic. If I were, rest assured RFC Bears – they’d get just the same treatment.
I’d expected the paranoia, insults, spin etc – hey – this is “fitba” after all and I welcome it good, bad and ugly, from fans within and without Glasgow. Indeed I’ve gone out and asked for it.
What I didn’t expect were the insults (and in at least one case a direct physical threat) not from fans but from Scottish journalists.
Sarajevo, Mogadishu, Kabul, Islamabad, Tripoli, Baghdad…I could bore you with more – in none of these places have I ever got this interesting reaction from local journalists.
Only in Glasgow.
So something’s up. Something’s different.
Something about asking questions about RFC clearly angers some in the Glasgow media in a way I’ve never seen in 25 years of global reporting.
Equally, a number of fine Glasgow journalists have been incredibly helpful, encouraging and agree there has been something deeply wrong for far too long in the culture of reporting RFC.
They know who they are, male and female, working in papers, radio and broadcasting and every single one has encouraged me to dig around in an area many cannot, will not or are prevented from, exploring.
I refer of course to “succulent lamb”. Graham Spiers, seasoned football writer in Glasgow was there the day it happened.
He and other reporters dined with Sir David Murray – then RFC owner, in the Channel Islands. Murray – as ever – was talking big on the Rangers dream-theme, laying out plans for the club that seemed to go well beyond the mere limit of the sky.
There duly appeared copy praising the “succulent lamb” that was eaten – the “fine red” that was drunk.
The food and drink were taken – so was this man’s dream of Rangers – all without much question in some quarters.
I make and imply no criticism at all of the reporters present – what intrigues as an outsider is how many people years later around Glasgow happily talk about “succulent lamb” journalism.
Let Graham explain – he was actually there, after all: “Succulent lamb journalism means a culture – and I hold my hand up here too – a culture of sycophantic, unquestioning, puff journalism that went on around Rangers generally and Sir David Murray particularly.”
Of course you’ll see it to some degree across sport, across football. But it was, many Glasgow journalists say, more damaging here.
“Look,” says Graham Spiers, “you are making a pact with the devil if you like. You get thrown the best scraps. You get something for the back page or whatever. But there’s a tacit deal. You don’t dig too deep. You don’t cause any trouble.”
So Big Dave’s dream was shouted across Glasgow. Fans loved it. It shifted papers. Everyone (in blue) wanted in, needed to believe.
So it went on – year after year. On one side the directors at Scotland’s football “governing” bodies didn’t ask much. On the other, large sections of Glasgow football journalism declined to delve.
How else to explain Ibrox’s boom to spectacular bust?
How else to deal with the fact that when Craig Whyte took over it was stories of a “billionaire” with “off the scale riches” that were pumped out?
Ten minutes on Google or in Companies House could’ve ended that. But no. It was dreamland the fans wanted, dreamland much of the media bought into and a club already financially crippled was about to be further injured.
Legions of fans sold out again, as it would turn out.
Succulent lamb culture has permeated to a degree that, as one prominent Glasgow tabloid journalist put it: “The press -a really critical check and balance in the normal way of things, had been more or less destroyed in Glasgow.”
So are things any better today? Is succulent lamb off the menu – replaced with humble pie?
I leave it to others to judge if that succulent lamb cozy Glasgow football culture has really gone away.

[Baker9]

Clark: Well, he's...he's, ah...probably pining for the Boyne.

Love it all, but that one cracked me up! :faf:

[grunt]

http://blogs.channel4.com/alex-thomsons-view/succulent-lamb-menu-questions/1010

Thanks for posting this Joe, it's very interesting.
If you don't mind, I'd like to repost it with the apostrophes fixed - it merits reading...

Right – let me make two things absolutely clear at the outset.
First, I am writing this imagining that one or two people outside Glasgow use the internet, so I might make some observations familiar to Clydeside surfers.

Second, this arises from my continuing investigation into Rangers which is still in early stages. That is to say, I am not investigating Celtic. If I were, rest assured RFC Bears – they’d get just the same treatment. I’d expected the paranoia, insults, spin etc – hey – this is “fitba” after all and I welcome it good, bad and ugly, from fans within and without Glasgow. Indeed I’ve gone out and asked for it.

What I didn’t expect were the insults (and in at least one case a direct physical threat) not from fans but from Scottish journalists.
Sarajevo, Mogadishu, Kabul, Islamabad, Tripoli, Baghdad…I could bore you with more – in none of these places have I ever got this interesting reaction from local journalists.

Only in Glasgow.

So something’s up. Something’s different.

Something about asking questions about RFC clearly angers some in the Glasgow media in a way I’ve never seen in 25 years of global reporting. Equally, a number of fine Glasgow journalists have been incredibly helpful, encouraging and agree there has been something deeply wrong for far too long in the culture of reporting RFC. They know who they are, male and female, working in papers, radio and broadcasting and every single one has encouraged me to dig around in an area many cannot, will not or are prevented from, exploring.

I refer of course to “succulent lamb”. Graham Spiers, seasoned football writer in Glasgow was there the day it happened. He and other reporters dined with Sir David Murray – then RFC owner, in the Channel Islands. Murray – as ever – was talking big on the Rangers dream-theme, laying out plans for the club that seemed to go well beyond the mere limit of the sky. There duly appeared copy praising the “succulent lamb” that was eaten – the “fine red” that was drunk. The food and drink were taken – so was this man’s dream of Rangers – all without much question in some quarters. I make and imply no criticism at all of the reporters present – what intrigues as an outsider is how many people years later around Glasgow happily talk about “succulent lamb” journalism.

Let Graham explain – he was actually there, after all: “Succulent lamb journalism means a culture – and I hold my hand up here too – a culture of sycophantic, unquestioning, puff journalism that went on around Rangers generally and Sir David Murray particularly.”
Of course you’ll see it to some degree across sport, across football. But it was, many Glasgow journalists say, more damaging here.
“Look,” says Graham Spiers, “you are making a pact with the devil if you like. You get thrown the best scraps. You get something for the back page or whatever. But there’s a tacit deal. You don’t dig too deep. You don’t cause any trouble.”

So Big Dave’s dream was shouted across Glasgow. Fans loved it. It shifted papers. Everyone (in blue) wanted in, needed to believe.
So it went on – year after year. On one side the directors at Scotland’s football “governing” bodies didn’t ask much. On the other, large sections of Glasgow football journalism declined to delve.

How else to explain Ibrox’s boom to spectacular bust?
How else to deal with the fact that when Craig Whyte took over it was stories of a “billionaire” with “off the scale riches” that were pumped out?

Ten minutes on Google or in Companies House could’ve ended that. But no. It was dreamland the fans wanted, dreamland much of the media bought into and a club already financially crippled was about to be further injured. Legions of fans sold out again, as it would turn out.
Succulent lamb culture has permeated to a degree that, as one prominent Glasgow tabloid journalist put it: “The press -a really critical check and balance in the normal way of things, had been more or less destroyed in Glasgow.”

So are things any better today? Is succulent lamb off the menu – replaced with humble pie?
I leave it to others to judge if that succulent lamb cozy Glasgow football culture has really gone away.

[grunt]

Some techy legal stuff here about the judgement. It's over my head, but you guys will understand it...

http://loveandgarbage.wordpress.com/2012/03/24/rangers-and-ticketus/

[joe breezy]

[QUOTE=grunt;3158494]Thanks for posting this Joe, it's very interesting.
If you don't mind, I'd like to repost it with the apostrophes fixed - it merits reading...

Thanks, I did it from my iPhone, not sure why it didn't work properly, shows the Scottish media up for what they are...

[CropleyWasGod]

[QUOTE=grunt;3158494]Thanks for posting this Joe, it's very interesting.
If you don't mind, I'd like to repost it with the apostrophes fixed - it merits reading...

Thanks, I did it from my iPhone, not sure why it didn't work properly, shows the Scottish media up for what they are...

Excellent Joe, thank you.

That said, it's significant that one journalist did break ranks. Keith Jackson, much reviled on here for good reason, claims that he was asking questions about the CW takeover last summer. Why did he do it? Was he perhaps not one of the "succulent lamb" journos, and hence took the hump?

I'm intrigued as to why he did it. But also grateful that he did. If he hadn't, and CW's scam hadn't been torpedoed by Malmo, would we be any the wiser?

[PatHead]

Odd thing about Keith Jackson is he had access to the "exclusives" up to not long ago which seemed to be the preserve of the lamb club. Wonder if, like Graham Spiers, he just eventually grew a pair. By the way these are serious allegations and I would love to know if BBC will investigate if any of their impartial journalists were involved.

On a seperate note I notice that Kennedy's bid has been put on hold

[StevieC]

Listened to Tom English and Chick on the radio after the game .. they made my blood boil with their defence of Rangers and how it was a foregone conclusion they'd still be in the SPL regardless of whether liquidated or not!

Apparently entry to SPL is down to a 6 man committee, headed by Doncaster, and that Doncaster, the Celtic member and A N Other would be all that was needed for Rangers to get the green light for SPL status.

It was asked why it was viewed as "rebel 10" and not "rebel 2" (based on them continually touting themselves for moves) and it was met with ridicule and sarcasm by the "chuckle brothers"!
The weegie lovin' media really are going all out with their OF love-in.

[greenginger]

Listened to Tom English and Chick on the radio after the game .. they made my blood boil with their defence of Rangers and how it was a foregone conclusion they'd still be in the SPL regardless of whether liquidated or not!

Apparently entry to SPL is down to a 6 man committee, headed by Doncaster, and that Doncaster, the Celtic member and A N Other would be all that was needed for Rangers to get the green light for SPL status.

It was asked why it was viewed as "rebel 10" and not "rebel 2" (based on them continually touting themselves for moves) and it was met with ridicule and sarcasm by the "chuckle brothers"!
The weegie lovin' media really are going all out with their OF love-in.


If the Huns are liquidated I'm sure it is Clause 14 of the SPL Articles of Association that apply. The Liquidated member's share goes to whoever is awarded it by decision of the whole SPL " in General Meeting passing a Qualified Resolution " to that effect.

That's what the rules say and an 83% majority has to be in favour.

Also under that Clause 14 a SPL member in administration can also be voted out of the League by the passing of a Qualified Resolution except in this case 90% have to vote for it.

[essexhibee]

Gonna be absolute carnage when Celtic win the title tommorow at Ibrox. Lennon said they won't gloat though...hmm aye right.

[SteveHFC]

Gonna be absolute carnage if Celtic win the title tommorow at Ibrox. Lennon said they won't gloat though...hmm aye right.

Sorted that for you :wink:

[essexhibee]

Sorted that for you :wink:

:wink: think its written for Celtic to do it after killie beat well today. I don't think they'll slip up the chance to win it on their biggest rivals patch.

[Hibrandenburg]

:wink: think its written for Celtic to do it after killie beat well today. I don't think they'll slip up the chance to win it on their biggest rivals patch.

They'll do it in 1st gear.

[lapsedhibee]

Gonna be absolute carnage when Celtic win the title tommorow at Ibrox. Lennon said they won't gloat though...hmm aye right.

Shirley Sky can just instruct Celtc not to win, thereby preventing all the aggro? :confused:

[Jim44]

http://blogs.channel4.com/alex-thomsons-view/succulent-lamb-menu-questions/1010

Right – let me make two things absolutely clear at the outset.

First, I am writing this imagining that one or two people outside Glasgow use the internet, so I might make some observations familiar to Clydeside surfers.
Second, this arises from my continuing investigation into Rangers which is still in early stages. That is to say, I am not investigating Celtic. If I were, rest assured RFC Bears – they’d get just the same treatment.V
I’d expected the paranoia, insults, spin etc – hey – this is “fitba” after all and I welcome it good, bad and ugly, from fans within and without Glasgow. Indeed I’ve gone out and asked for it.
What I didn’t expect were the insults (and in at least one case a direct physical threat) not from fans but from Scottish journalists.
Sarajevo, Mogadishu, Kabul, Islamabad, Tripoli, Baghdad…I could bore you with more – in none of these places have I ever got this interesting reaction from local journalists.
Only in Glasgow.
So something’s up. Something’s different.
Something about asking questions about RFC clearly angers some in the Glasgow media in a way I’ve never seen in 25 years of global reporting.
Equally, a number of fine Glasgow journalists have been incredibly helpful, encouraging and agree there has been something deeply wrong for far too long in the culture of reporting RFC.
They know who they are, male and female, working in papers, radio and broadcasting and every single one has encouraged me to dig around in an area many cannot, will not or are prevented from, exploring.
I refer of course to “succulent lamb”. Graham Spiers, seasoned football writer in Glasgow was there the day it happened.
He and other reporters dined with Sir David Murray – then RFC owner, in the Channel Islands. Murray – as ever – was talking big on the Rangers dream-theme, laying out plans for the club that seemed to go well beyond the mere limit of the sky.
There duly appeared copy praising the “succulent lamb” that was eaten – the “fine red” that was drunk.
The food and drink were taken – so was this man’s dream of Rangers – all without much question in some quarters.
I make and imply no criticism at all of the reporters present – what intrigues as an outsider is how many people years later around Glasgow happily talk about “succulent lamb” journalism.
Let Graham explain – he was actually there, after all: “Succulent lamb journalism means a culture – and I hold my hand up here too – a culture of sycophantic, unquestioning, puff journalism that went on around Rangers generally and Sir David Murray particularly.”
Of course you’ll see it to some degree across sport, across football. But it was, many Glasgow journalists say, more damaging here.
“Look,” says Graham Spiers, “you are making a pact with the devil if you like. You get thrown the best scraps. You get something for the back page or whatever. But there’s a tacit deal. You don’t dig too deep. You don’t cause any trouble.”
So Big Dave’s dream was shouted across Glasgow. Fans loved it. It shifted papers. Everyone (in blue) wanted in, needed to believe.
So it went on – year after year. On one side the directors at Scotland’s football “governing” bodies didn’t ask much. On the other, large sections of Glasgow football journalism declined to delve.
How else to explain Ibrox’s boom to spectacular bust?
How else to deal with the fact that when Craig Whyte took over it was stories of a “billionaire” with “off the scale riches” that were pumped out?
Ten minutes on Google or in Companies House could’ve ended that. But no. It was dreamland the fans wanted, dreamland much of the media bought into and a club already financially crippled was about to be further injured.
Legions of fans sold out again, as it would turn out.
Succulent lamb culture has permeated to a degree that, as one prominent Glasgow tabloid journalist put it: “The press -a really critical check and balance in the normal way of things, had been more or less destroyed in Glasgow.”
So are things any better today? Is succulent lamb off the menu – replaced with humble pie?
I leave it to others to judge if that succulent lamb cozy Glasgow football culture has really gone away.

Good stuff. Wouldn't surprise me if Thomson woke up to find a tartan wrapped horse's head under the sheets.

[killie-hibby]

Odd thing about Keith Jackson is he had access to the "exclusives" up to not long ago which seemed to be the preserve of the lamb club. Wonder if, like Graham Spiers, he just eventually grew a pair. By the way these are serious allegations and I would love to know if BBC will investigate if any of their impartial journalists were involved.

On a seperate note I notice that Kennedy's bid has been put on hold




It seems like five or six years since Graham Spiers was banned from Ibrox. He then based himself in England with the Times.
Can anyone remember the specific reason for the ban?

[green glory]

Does anyone know who the journalists are who've threatened Alex Thomson?

[Ozyhibby]

Jackson only turned when whyte came in. He wouldn't have dared go against Murray.

[hibs0666]

Shirley Sky can just instruct Celtc not to win, thereby preventing all the aggro? :confused:

The huns showed what pride in the jersey is all about and blew the tims away today.

[blackpoolhibs]

The huns showed what pride in the jersey is all about and blew the tims away today.

:agree: Although yet again a team win an important game with players they cant afford, but i suppose that will be ignored and forgotten about in Glasgow tonight.

[Scouse Hibee]

:agree: Although yet again a team win an important game with players they cant afford, but i suppose that will be ignored and forgotten about in Glasgow tonight.


I wish we could win games with the players we have loaned because we can't afford to buy them!

[ballengeich]

:agree: Although yet again a team win an important game with players they cant afford, but i suppose that will be ignored and forgotten about in Glasgow tonight.

That's unfair. They can afford them now they're only being paid a quarter of what's on their contracts:greengrin

[Seveno]

It seems like five or six years since Graham Spiers was banned from Ibrox. He then based himself in England with the Times.
Can anyone remember the specific reason for the ban?

He wrote an article criticising Murray which Murray then followed up with a phone call to his editor demanding that Spiers was sacked.

[PatHead]

That's unfair. They can afford them now they're only being paid a quarter of what's on their contracts:greengrin

But which contract?

[grunt]

From the Scots Law Thoughts blog

http://scotslawthoughts.wordpress.com/2012/03/24/rangers-administration-lord-hodges-decision-re-ticketus-part-1-new-information/

And today's update

http://scotslawthoughts.wordpress.com/2012/03/25/rangers-administrators-want-to-rescue-the-club-with-a-share-issue-why-it-wont-work/

[CropleyWasGod]

From the Scots Law Thoughts blog

http://scotslawthoughts.wordpress.com/2012/03/24/rangers-administration-lord-hodges-decision-re-ticketus-part-1-new-information/

And today's update

http://scotslawthoughts.wordpress.com/2012/03/25/rangers-administrators-want-to-rescue-the-club-with-a-share-issue-why-it-wont-work/

Ohhhhh.... look at this bit :greengrin

Rangers owe the Debenture holders who contributed some years ago to ground improvements around £8-9 million, the Debentures becoming due and payable upon the company entering administration.

[PatHead]

Ohhhhh.... look at this bit :greengrin

Rangers owe the Debenture holders who contributed some years ago to ground improvements around £8-9 million, the Debentures becoming due and payable upon the company entering administration.

So how much is their debt now?

[CropleyWasGod]

So how much is their debt now?

That article is talking about £100m, which is the rough number I had in my head that an investor would need if they were to take it all on without a CVA, and with the BTC going against them.

It is also saying that, even if the admins break the Ticketus contract, T would simply add their full debt to the pile. Given what others have said on here, I am not so sure about that.

[Newry Hibs]

Was listening to the OF match today on 5 live. Boy what a festival of patronising crap. They were creaming themselves on the great atmosphere and how even at the end both sets of fans were cheering. How on earth could Scottish football possibly do without this fantastic fixture (conveniently forgetting the match of hate). Quite frankly no one else matters. It was brilliant.

Well, that's me convinced. I fully hope they survive and we can all enjoy the wonders of the old firm and be delighted to feed off the tiniest scraps that they so generously allow us. I now love the OF. The radio told me so. Roddy Forsyth was commentating.

[lapsedhibee]

Was listening to the OF match today on 5 live. Boy what a festival of patronising crap. They were creaming themselves on the great atmosphere and how even at the end both sets of fans were cheering. How on earth could Scottish football possibly do without this fantastic fixture (conveniently forgetting the match of hate). Quite frankly no one else matters. It was brilliant.

Well, that's me convinced. I fully hope they survive and we can all enjoy the wonders of the old firm and be delighted to feed off the tiniest scraps that they so generously allow us. I now love the OF. The radio told me so. Roddy Forsyth was commentating.

On the tellybox, Ch4's report was better. Alex Thomson gave prominent mention to TGFITW singing about the IRA and the Huns singing about the Pope.

[McD]

That article is talking about £100m, which is the rough number I had in my head that an investor would need if they were to take it all on without a CVA, and with the BTC going against them.

It is also saying that, even if the admins break the Ticketus contract, T would simply add their full debt to the pile. Given what others have said on here, I am not so sure about that.

Didn't rangers also have some level of debt under the murray regime, outwith the lloyds debt, that would have still existed after whyte's takeover, or was it all (give or take) owed to lloyds?

[CropleyWasGod]

Didn't rangers also have some level of debt under the murray regime, outwith the lloyds debt, that would have still existed after whyte's takeover, or was it all (give or take) owed to lloyds?

Don't know, TBH, it's only recently I've become interested :greengrin

[Jim44]

Was listening to the OF match today on 5 live. Boy what a festival of patronising crap. They were creaming themselves on the great atmosphere and how even at the end both sets of fans were cheering. How on earth could Scottish football possibly do without this fantastic fixture (conveniently forgetting the match of hate). Quite frankly no one else matters. It was brilliant.

Well, that's me convinced. I fully hope they survive and we can all enjoy the wonders of the old firm and be delighted to feed off the tiniest scraps that they so generously allow us. I now love the OF. The radio told me so. Roddy Forsyth was commentating.

Sky also did their bit for the cause, feathering their own self interested nest, with the opening statement. ......... "Rangers couldn't exist without Celtic and Celtic couldn't exist without Rangers, but today .........". blah, blah, blah

[ancient hibee]

Didn't rangers also have some level of debt under the murray regime, outwith the lloyds debt, that would have still existed after whyte's takeover, or was it all (give or take) owed to lloyds?

Yes-they had a rights issue to reduce other debts which ended with Murray International having to lob in around £50M-the greatest support in the world raised about half a millionI think.

[Seveno]

Didn't rangers also have some level of debt under the murray regime, outwith the lloyds debt, that would have still existed after whyte's takeover, or was it all (give or take) owed to lloyds?

I'm pretty sure that Murray miraculously magicked away some debt by converting it into a long term bond. This was before he sold off the Rangers Shop to remove more debt?

The Weegie press gobbled it all up as wonderful financial management as tasty as succulent lamb.

[Caversham Green]

Didn't rangers also have some level of debt under the murray regime, outwith the lloyds debt, that would have still existed after whyte's takeover, or was it all (give or take) owed to lloyds?

The last published accounts (30 June 2010) show Amounts falling due in less than one year of £27.5m and due in more than one year of £37.9m. These include a bank loan of £19m in total (£1m due in one year); a bank overdraft of £3.7m all due in one year; deferred income - capital grants £8.7 (£200k due in one year); other deferred income £24m (£16.8m due in one year) and a lease creditor of £4m (£159k due in one year). The debentures are included in Capital and Reserves and so aren't in the above figures. They are indeed payable on administration and the amount payable is £7.736m.

It's interesting that there's £7.3m deferred income due in more than one year - that's where ST money goes, and might suggests there was a long-term Ticketus arrangement already in place back then. I'm also a bit puzzled that the Ticketus arrangement we're talking about now includes STs for the 2011-2012 season. The amount was paid in May, but surely STs would have been on sale some months prior to that?

[CropleyWasGod]

The last published accounts (30 June 2010) show Amounts falling due in less than one year of £27.5m and due in more than one year of £37.9m. These include a bank loan of £19m in total (£1m due in one year); a bank overdraft of £3.7m all due in one year; deferred income - capital grants £8.7 (£200k due in one year); other deferred income £24m (£16.8m due in one year) and a lease creditor of £4m (£159k due in one year). The debentures are included in Capital and Reserves and so aren't in the above figures. They are indeed payable on administration and the amount payable is £7.736m.

It's interesting that there's £7.3m deferred income due in more than one year - that's where ST money goes, and might suggests there was a long-term Ticketus arrangement already in place back then. I'm also a bit puzzled that the Ticketus arrangement we're talking about now includes STs for the 2011-2012 season. The amount was paid in May, but surely STs would have been on sale some months prior to that?

From an earlier post, 100-odd pages ago, it seems that RFC defaulted on payment to T of (some of?) this season's ticket sales. Hence it would appear in (current?) creditors.

[Caversham Green]

From an earlier post, 100-odd pages ago, it seems that RFC defaulted on payment to T of (some of?) this season's ticket sales. Hence it would appear in (current?) creditors.

That means that RFC had already defaulted on payments to Ticketus before CW got them to buy his shares for him. So the scenario is that Ticketus had already dealt with and been scammed by SDM's regime (for £6m?) when CW came along and said 'I don't own RFC yet, but when I do we'll do an £18m deal re season tickets for the year after next and the one after that. Just you stick the £18m in my solicitor's account for the moment and I'll see you alright.'

And Ticketus didn't bother to contact SDM? Who knew nothing about the arrangement and was duped?

I think I need to replace some of the buttons on the back of my heid.

[CropleyWasGod]

That means that RFC had already defaulted on payments to Ticketus before CW got them to buy his shares for him. So the scenario is that Ticketus had already dealt with and been scammed by SDM's regime (for £6m?) when CW came along and said 'I don't own RFC yet, but when I do we'll do an £18m deal re season tickets for the year after next and the one after that. Just you stick the £18m in my solicitor's account for the moment and I'll see you alright.'

And Ticketus didn't bother to contact SDM? Who knew nothing about the arrangement and was duped?

I think I need to replace some of the buttons on the back of my heid.

Sorry, I have my Monday head on. I have probably duped you.

IIRC, there was a payment due to Ticketus FOR the current season, which was part of the deal they did with CW... not SDM. It was that payment that went unpaid.

Reading that over, of course, it does seem a bit strange that the deal for this season didn't kick in until after CW took over.

[Caversham Green]

Sorry, I have my Monday head on. I have probably duped you.

IIRC, there was a payment due to Ticketus FOR the current season, which was part of the deal they did with CW... not SDM. It was that payment that went unpaid.

Reading that over, of course, it does seem a bit strange that the deal for this season didn't kick in until after CW took over.

But the amount due to T for the current season must have arisen from a deal done pre-takeover? I think Ticketus have said that they had previously dealt with RFC under SDM. Given that STs are on sale now - in March - I would have thought that a large part of the ST business would already have been concluded by May, and there wouldn't have been a huge amount left to sell to Ticketus if it was all done by the estimable Mr Whyte.

[CropleyWasGod]

But the amount due to T for the current season must have arisen from a deal done pre-takeover? I think Ticketus have said that they had previously dealt with RFC under SDM. Given that STs are on sale now - in March - I would have thought that a large part of the ST business would already have been concluded by May, and there wouldn't have been a huge amount left to sell to Ticketus if it was all done by the estimable Mr Whyte.

Agreed.

That leaves two possibilities:-

1. the previous poster had it wrong.

2. he had it right, and RFC did default on STs sold under SDM.

[Caversham Green]

Agreed.

That leaves two possibilities:-

1. the previous poster had it wrong.

2. he had it right, and RFC did default on STs sold under SDM.

The judgement says:


On or about 9 May 2011 Ticketus paid £20,300,912 for the first tranche of the season tickets which covered the seasons 2011-2012, 2012-2013 and 2013-2014.



That suggests that Ticketus did indeed buy the remaining STs for the current season in May. Seems strange to me.

[green glory]

Been following Alex Thomson's excellent blogs and tweets, but I missed the second part of his report on C4 at the weekend. Does anyone have a link?

[grunt]

Seems strange to me.The whole thing with Ticketus is strange.

[HUTCHYHIBBY]

Was listening to the OF match today on 5 live. Boy what a festival of patronising crap. They were creaming themselves on the great atmosphere and how even at the end both sets of fans were cheering. How on earth could Scottish football possibly do without this fantastic fixture (conveniently forgetting the match of hate). Quite frankly no one else matters. It was brilliant.

Well, that's me convinced. I fully hope they survive and we can all enjoy the wonders of the old firm and be delighted to feed off the tiniest scraps that they so generously allow us. I now love the OF. The radio told me so. Roddy Forsyth was commentating.

Some English journalist on the BBC website was saying much the same on their live updates page yesterday, they just don't get it do they?

[Caversham Green]

The whole thing with Ticketus is strange.

Very true. I know there are rational explanations for the variuos aspects, but taken as a whole it just doesn't hang right.

[Lix]

Does anyone know if the debentures are secured?:confused: In the UK they usually are... But haven't seen any mention of it.

Meant to add really enjoying the accounting and legal techs aspects of this. Cheers guys for all the updates.
i'm such a geek sometimes ...:nerd:

[StevieC]

Does anyone know if the debentures are secured?:confused: In the UK they usually are... But haven't seen any mention of it.

Meant to add really enjoying the accounting and legal techs aspects of this. Cheers guys for all the updates.
i'm such a geek sometimes ...:nerd:


Alix, did you read the Scots Law blog and the link to the bit about Scots/English Law?

Scots Law and Ticketus (http://loveandgarbage.wordpress.com/2012/03/24/rangers-and-ticketus/)

[Newry Hibs]

Some English journalist on the BBC website was saying much the same on their live updates page yesterday, they just don't get it do they?

I would have thought that the novelty would have worn off by now. Not sure how many years Sky have covered league matches, but that's 4 a season plus cup ties and it's still as if it's the first time anyone outside of Glasgow is getting to experience it.


I think the Scottish part of 5 Live get so excited about being able to broadcast to the whole UK that they keep on (and on and on) about it being unique. Unique at least 4 times a year. Does Radio Scotland (Sportssound?) get so excited? Or is that a stupid question?

[CropleyWasGod]

Does anyone know if the debentures are secured?:confused: In the UK they usually are... But haven't seen any mention of it.

Meant to add really enjoying the accounting and legal techs aspects of this. Cheers guys for all the updates.
i'm such a geek sometimes ...:nerd:

This gives an overview of the ranking of creditors:-

http://www.wilsonfield.co.uk/services/business-recovery-and-insolvency/order-of-priority

It does suggest that the debenture holders will rank before the ordinary creditors.

[PatHead]

Don't know if it has been answered in the past but if Ticketus are supposedly screwed due to their debt not being due until next year does this mean Hearts are in trouble for the Wallace payment?

(By the way I have clarified with Octopus that none of my clients are affected by Rangers fiasco, I have been informed the Rangers Ticketus money was limited to a couple of EIS/ VCTs rather than spread over range of products so it would appear some investors, in these limited products, are going to be hurt if it all goes pear shaped. Octupus total funds are in excess of £3bn so it shouldn't impact on the whole company.)

[CropleyWasGod]

Don't know if it has been answered in the past but if Ticketus are supposedly screwed due to their debt not being due until next year does this mean Hearts are in trouble for the Wallace payment?

()

You mean, in that it isn't due until next year?

IMO, it's a creditor, and HMFC would be right to submit a claim. It's up to the admins to adjudicate that claim..... and have another day in Court if need be. :greengrin

[Seveno]

Don't know if it has been answered in the past but if Ticketus are supposedly screwed due to their debt not being due until next year does this mean Hearts are in trouble for the Wallace payment?

(By the way I have clarified with Octopus that none of my clients are affected by Rangers fiasco, I have been informed the Rangers Ticketus money was limited to a couple of EIS/ VCTs rather than spread over range of products so it would appear some investors, in these limited products, are going to be hurt if it all goes pear shaped. Octupus total funds are in excess of £3bn so it shouldn't impact on the whole company.)

£3bn is certainly a lot of money but then Bernie Madoff stung his investors for $18bn. I do hope that the rest of Octopus is run on a more financially prudent basis that Ticketus.

( Not trying to tell you your job or anything :cb )

[jgl07]

You mean, in that it isn't due until next year?

IMO, it's a creditor, and HMFC would be right to submit a claim. It's up to the admins to adjudicate that claim..... and have another day in Court if need be. :greengrin


I would guess that entering administration could change the position of a deferred debt.

Under normal circumstances the Yams will not be due their next installment on Lee Wallace until the end of the season. But there may be no Rangers FC around by the end of the season.

[greenginger]

You mean, in that it isn't due until next year?

IMO, it's a creditor, and HMFC would be right to submit a claim. It's up to the admins to adjudicate that claim..... and have another day in Court if need be. :greengrin


Does that mean if Rangers come out of administration in say June the Yams payments due in July this year and July 2013 will be subject to the same pence in the pound payout as existing debts.

They will be raging over at the PBS if the Huns land back on their feet and by next July Lee Wallace is a regular internationalist, playing against his old club and they have been told they are not due his transfer installment.

[Caversham Green]

Does anyone know if the debentures are secured?:confused: In the UK they usually are... But haven't seen any mention of it.

Meant to add really enjoying the accounting and legal techs aspects of this. Cheers guys for all the updates.
i'm such a geek sometimes ...:nerd:

No, they're not secured and don't carry interest. They were repayable on winding up, insolvency or the club leaving Ibrox or at the club's discretion after 2026. Rights consist of a season ticket and use of the "Club Deck" facilities in the Bill Struth stand. Broadly, they were a 35 year season ticket and club membership.

The fact that they are included in Capital and Reserves would usually mean they rank behind ordinary creditors on winding up, but the repayment clause means they turn into ordinary creditors when any of the above events take place.

[CropleyWasGod]

Does that mean if Rangers come out of administration in say June the Yams payments due in July this year and July 2013 will be subject to the same pence in the pound payout as existing debts.

They will be raging over at the PBS if the Huns land back on their feet and by next July Lee Wallace is a regular internationalist, playing against his old club and they have been told they are not due his transfer installment.

You reckon that'll happen? :greengrin

Maybe in SFL3....

[Caversham Green]

Don't know if it has been answered in the past but if Ticketus are supposedly screwed due to their debt not being due until next year does this mean Hearts are in trouble for the Wallace payment?

(By the way I have clarified with Octopus that none of my clients are affected by Rangers fiasco, I have been informed the Rangers Ticketus money was limited to a couple of EIS/ VCTs rather than spread over range of products so it would appear some investors, in these limited products, are going to be hurt if it all goes pear shaped. Octupus total funds are in excess of £3bn so it shouldn't impact on the whole company.)

I agree with jgl07 and CWG on this. I think Ticketus's problem is that they aren't actually owed money - they don't do loans - they are owed season tickets that haven't been issued yet. Strangely enough D&P were trying to convert that into a cash debt.

On the Octopus point, there are actually about sixty companies called 'Ticketus XX Ltd' (where XX represents different numbers for each company). I guess they start a new company for each investment project, so anyone not specifically investing in the RFC ST caper will probably not be affected.

[greenginger]

You reckon that'll happen? :greengrin

Maybe in SFL3....


All arms of the Media are willing it to happen and the Spl seem to be using the Huns SPL salvation as a bargaining chip in the Voting Issue.

They are after all the Establishment Club and much as I hate to even think it , I can see them back lording over Scottih Football in a couple of years.

[jgl07]

All arms of the Media are willing it to happen and the Spl seem to be using the Huns SPL salvation as a bargaining chip in the Voting Issue.

They are after all the Establishment Club and much as I hate to even think it, I can see them back lording over Scottish Football in a couple of years.

Possibly over what is left of Scottish football.

I don't think that the media or for that matter the clubs, have a clue as to the strength of feeling amongst ordinary supporters over this issue. Extracting a few concessions over voting rights will not suffice. Kick out Rangers and the clubs can outvote Celtic and get that anyway.

If Rangers are allowed to get away with this, a large number (me included) will walk away from Scottish Football and never come back.

[ancienthibby]

Yet another twist!

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/17516796

[grunt]

More hot air from the Blue Knights

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/17516796

Prospective Rangers buyer Paul Murray has told BBC Scotland he will walk away from Ticketus if he cannot strike a deal in the interests of the club.
Murray's Blue Knights consortium has been allied to the company that funded Craig Whyte's takeover last May.
Rangers' administrators are considering reneging on the Ticketus deal (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-17489451) .
Murray believes it makes sense to keep them on board but says if they cannot do a deal that's good for the club, he will pursue other options.
The Blue Knights are one of five parties interested in buying Rangers out of administration (http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/17504195) , with further UK-based as well as overseas interest under consideration by administrators Duff and Phelps.
A former director who left the board shortly after Whyte's takeover, Murray made his bid public soon after Rangers entered administration on 14 February and has always maintained liquidation can be avoided.
If the administrators do decide to renege on the £24m deal Ticketus did with Whyte, the finance company becomes the club's largest unsecured creditor, albeit with the judgement on a potential HM Revenue Customs bill still to come.
Murray says having Ticketus onside would help get Rangers out out of administration, but not at any cost. He believes any deal has to be right for the club.
He added that discussions with Ticketus are continuing and a decision could be made in the early part of the week.
And he stresses that his Blue Knights consortium still has a viable bid without Ticketus.

[grunt]

Yet another twist!Too quick for me!

[green glory]

I think it's fair to say the BK consortium is an exercise in posturing. Despite tabloid reports of other interested parties, anything other than someone with 100m to burn isn't really a serious bidder. Will we take bets on a liquidation date?

[Viva_Palmeiras]

Too quick for me!

Not a smokescreen surely ?

In a parallel universe You gotta feel sorry for TicketFuss getting royally shafted from all sides.
Non-disclosure agreement with the Baron Knights? Oh dear oh dear!


Awww boo Caversham Ill just pretend its a loan ;)

[CropleyWasGod]

I think it's fair to say the BK consortium is an exercise in posturing. Despite tabloid reports of other interested parties, anything other than someone with 100m to burn isn't really a serious bidder. Will we take bets on a liquidation date?

It seems weird to me that they have now said they don't need Ticketus. Given the amount of cash needed for the takeover, as you say, I would have thought T's money was crucial.

Are the BK's now positioning themselves for being the White Knights if and when liquidation happens? I keep saying it, but that would be my preferred route if .... making the sign of the cross here....I wanted to own the Huns. Great brand, large customer base, no debt... :agree:

[BonnieFitbaTeam]

On the tellybox, Ch4's report was better. Alex Thomson gave prominent mention to TGFITW singing about the IRA and the Huns singing about the Pope.

It was better than that. He made the point that it was the first OF game since the new legislation, that Tims sang about the IRA, that Huns abused the Pope and that the Police did...........well, nothing.

[ginger_rice]

I think it's fair to say the BK consortium is an exercise in posturing. Despite tabloid reports of other interested parties, anything other than someone with 100m to burn isn't really a serious bidder. Will we take bets on a liquidation date?

Do you think that perhaps they are just trying to flush out other prospective buyers for the club?

[Seveno]

It was better than that. He made the point that it was the first OF game since the new legislation, that Tims sang about the IRA, that Huns abused the Pope and that the Police did...........well, nothing.

If you heard it then should you not, as a responsible citizen, report it to the Police ? :greengrin

[grunt]

Non-disclosure agreement with the Baron Knights? Oh dear oh dear!That's a name from the past!

[BonnieFitbaTeam]

If you heard it then should you not, as a responsible citizen, report it to the Police ? :greengrin


When did I claim to be a responsible citizen ??

I didn't actually hear it myself. I was loosely quoting what the C4 reporter said in his report. It stuck in my head because it was probably the first time I've heard a national news programme tell it how it is, rather than pandering to those ba***rds !

[lapsedhibee]

it was probably the first time I've heard a national news programme tell it how it is, rather than pandering to those ba***rds !
:agree: Was refreshing. Hope he/Ch4 does more.

[ancienthibby]

That's a name from the past!

Swiftly moving to become the Barren Knights, it seems!:greengrin

[Seveno]

When did I claim to be a responsible citizen ??

I didn't actually hear it myself. I was loosely quoting what the C4 reporter said in his report. It stuck in my head because it was probably the first time I've heard a national news programme tell it how it is, rather than pandering to those ba***rds !

Well come on, guys. Someone must have heard it first hand !

[Jack]

Well come on, guys. Someone must have heard it first hand !

Pretty much what BonnieFitbaTeam said, I couldn't believe my ears :-)

[Viva_Palmeiras]

That's a name from the past!

Well someone had to - maybe somebody has I've not read all the posts as Caversham may tell you ;)

[Spike Mandela]

Craig Whyte's back.......................and he means business!:greengrin

http://www.thescottishsun.co.uk/scotsol/homepage/sport/spl/4221296/Ill-have-a-say-in-who-buys-Gers.html

[lapsedhibee]

Craig Whyte's back.......................and he means business!:greengrin

http://www.thescottishsun.co.uk/scotsol/homepage/sport/spl/4221296/Ill-have-a-say-in-who-buys-Gers.html


SHAMELESS Craig Whyte will demand a say in who buys Rangers.

And his uncompromising stance could see the Blue Knights' hopes of gaining control DOOMED.

Their consortium frontman Paul Murray has been out-spoken in his criticism of Whyte but sources involved in the discussions have told SunSport the discredited Gers chairman is not ready to wash his hands of the mess he's in.

And that could prove a major stumbling block in Murray's dream of taking over.

Administrator Paul Clark insisted a fortnight ago that Whyte had now become "absolutely irrelevant."

But Whyte met with Clark in London last week and underlined his determination to be involved in the process.

It's understood Whyte feels strongly that his position as majority shareholder has NOT been weakened despite a blizzard of negative publicity. He even talked about retaining control of the club if and when it exits administration.

At the very least Whyte expects to have a major say in who takes control of his 85.3 per cent shareholding.

At the moment there are five bids on the table with ex-director Murray the fans' favourite.

Sale Sharks owner Brian Kennedy is also in the running along with Club 9 Sports and consortiums from Singapore and the UK.

Administrator Clark plans to name a shortlist of two preferred bidders by the end of the week.

They'd then have another fortnight to put together and table their detailed proposal.

Murray had initially joined forces with Ticketus but he is now weighing up whether to scrap those plans if it helps his bid.

But if Whyte is allowed to be involved in the bidding process then his hopes may hit the wall. Our source said: "Whyte has made it clear he still believes he's got a major say in things.

"He feels strongly that anybody who wants to do a deal will need to talk to him first.

"The administrators think differently but Whyte insists he's still the majority shareholder."

[RyeSloan]

SHAMELESS Craig Whyte will demand a say in who buys Rangers.

And his uncompromising stance could see the Blue Knights' hopes of gaining control DOOMED.

Their consortium frontman Paul Murray has been out-spoken in his criticism of Whyte but sources involved in the discussions have told SunSport the discredited Gers chairman is not ready to wash his hands of the mess he's in.

And that could prove a major stumbling block in Murray's dream of taking over.

Administrator Paul Clark insisted a fortnight ago that Whyte had now become "absolutely irrelevant."

But Whyte met with Clark in London last week and underlined his determination to be involved in the process.

It's understood Whyte feels strongly that his position as majority shareholder has NOT been weakened despite a blizzard of negative publicity. He even talked about retaining control of the club if and when it exits administration.

At the very least Whyte expects to have a major say in who takes control of his 85.3 per cent shareholding.

At the moment there are five bids on the table with ex-director Murray the fans' favourite.

Sale Sharks owner Brian Kennedy is also in the running along with Club 9 Sports and consortiums from Singapore and the UK.

Administrator Clark plans to name a shortlist of two preferred bidders by the end of the week.

They'd then have another fortnight to put together and table their detailed proposal.

Murray had initially joined forces with Ticketus but he is now weighing up whether to scrap those plans if it helps his bid.

But if Whyte is allowed to be involved in the bidding process then his hopes may hit the wall. Our source said: "Whyte has made it clear he still believes he's got a major say in things.

"He feels strongly that anybody who wants to do a deal will need to talk to him first.

"The administrators think differently but Whyte insists he's still the majority shareholder."

I would assume that's becuase he is!?!

[Keith_M]

Can anyone explain to me why Whyte would NOT still be the majority shareholder?

He bought Murray's shares and still owns them, surely?

There may be conditions of the sale that he has not met, which may or may not mean that the shares revert to being owned by SDM but that surely would take a court case to decide. I'm not aware of anyone raising such an action so, therefore, he still owns the shares.


Or am I just being a bit stupid?

[CropleyWasGod]

Can anyone explain to me why Whyte would NOT still be the majority shareholder?

He bought Murray's shares and still owns them, surely?

There may be conditions of the sale that he has not met, which may or may not mean that the shares revert to being owned by SDM but that surely would take a court case to decide. I'm not aware of anyone raising such an action so, therefore, he still owns the shares.


Or am I just being a bit stupid?

In a word.... naw :greengrin

The one-liner from the admins about him not being so was, IMO, just to appease the masses.

[JeMeSouviens]

Jim Spence stated on RS on Saturday that the word coming from the admins is via the PR firm Media House. The same Media House employed first by David Murray and subsequently by Craig Whyte. In the PR world ... there was no tax case, no chance of the Huns going into administration, Whyte's wealth was off the radar, etc. etc. etc. Nothing that comes from that source is remotely worth trusting.

[johnrebus]

Can anyone explain to me why Whyte would NOT still be the majority shareholder?

He bought Murray's shares and still owns them, surely?

There may be conditions of the sale that he has not met, which may or may not mean that the shares revert to being owned by SDM but that surely would take a court case to decide. I'm not aware of anyone raising such an action so, therefore, he still owns the shares.


Or am I just being a bit stupid?



The administrators have made a number of statements that add up to no more than wishful thinking IMHO. They are making so many assumptions that they are almost coming accross as conmen themselves!

I would not be surprised if it takes years to fully unravel the mess that is Glasgow Rangers FC.

Have to be honest and admit to having a sneaking admiraton for Craig Whyte in all of this. Difficult and too early to tell if he is a very crafty operator, an idiot or a criminal. But whatever happens, it looks as if it could all end in a tidy wedge in his back pocket.

Or a cell in Saughton.



:cb

[Keith_M]

In a word.... naw :greengrin

The one-liner from the admins about him not being so was, IMO, just to appease the masses.


The administrators have made a number of statements that add up to no more than wishful thinking IMHO. They are making so many assumptions that they are almost coming accross as conmen themselves!

I would not be surprised if it takes years to fully unravel the mess that is Glasgow Rangers FC.




Thanks :thumbsup:

[grunt]

Interesting to compare activity on another major company currently in administration. Game Group makes 2,000 redundant on first day of administration. And yes, I know that Rangers are different. But still...

[Hibs Class]

The administrators have made a number of statements that add up to no more than wishful thinking IMHO. They are making so many assumptions that they are almost coming accross as conmen themselves!

I would not be surprised if it takes years to fully unravel the mess that is Glasgow Rangers FC.

Have to be honest and admit to having a sneaking admiraton for Craig Whyte in all of this. Difficult and too early to tell if he is a very crafty operator, an idiot or a criminal. But whatever happens, it looks as if it could all end in a tidy wedge in his back pocket.

Or a cell in Saughton.



:cb

:agree: I'm warming to him too.

[jgl07]

The administrators have made a number of statements that add up to no more than wishful thinking IMHO. They are making so many assumptions that they are almost coming accross as conmen themselves!

I would not be surprised if it takes years to fully unravel the mess that is Glasgow Rangers FC.

Have to be honest and admit to having a sneaking admiraton for Craig Whyte in all of this. Difficult and too early to tell if he is a very crafty operator, an idiot or a criminal. But whatever happens, it looks as if it could all end in a tidy wedge in his back pocket.

Or a cell in Saughton.

:cb

The whole legal mess will make coming out of administration all the harder even assuming (implausibly) that HMRC will accept a CVA and the Ticketout issue will be resolved.

Duff and Phelps have got enough leeway with the voluntary wage reductions to keep Rangers in business till the end of the season. If these legal issues are not resolved by then, it is hard to think out any outcome bar liquidation.

The 'bids' for Rangers are bordering on fantasy football:

Assuming that Craig Whyte hands over his shares for hee-haw, assuming that HMRC will accept a 5 pence in the pound CVA assuming that Ticketout will forgo their rights to future ticket sales in return for a 5 pence in the pound CVA, assuming that the debenture holders do not kick up a fuss.

The SPL have a couple of weeks to untangle themselves from a real mess for next season. Do they put Rangers in the fixture list for next season when there is a strong probability that they will not be there? This risks total meltdown for the SPL.

Act now and dock Rangers enough points to put them into the bottom six before the split and to ensure they will be relegated then the problem is transferred to the SFL.

[Bristolhibby]

The whole legal mess will make coming out of administration all the harder even assuming (implausibly) that HMRC will accept a CVA and the Ticketout issue will be resolved.

Duff and Phelps have got enough leeway with the voluntary wage reductions to keep Rangers in business till the end of the season. If these legal issues are not resolved by then, it is hard to think out any outcome bar liquidation.

The 'bids' for Rangers are bordering on fantasy football:

Assuming that Craig Whyte hands over his shares for hee-haw, assuming that HMRC will accept a 5 pence in the pound CVA assuming that Ticketout will forgo their rights to future ticket sales in return for a 5 pence in the pound CVA, assuming that the debenture holders do not kick up a fuss.

The SPL have a couple of weeks to untangle themselves from a real mess for next season. Do they put Rangers in the fixture list for next season when there is a strong probability that they will not be there? This risks total meltdown for the SPL.

Act now and dock Rangers enough points to put them into the bottom six before the split and to ensure they will be relegated then the problem is transferred to the SFL.


I am really trying to get my head round this, and what it means for Hibs.

Is there any way before next season that Rangers avoid liquidation?

a. Rangers are liquidated and have to: -
i. Start in the 3rd as Newco
ii. SPL Clubs cave in and Newco is allowed in to the SPL

In both these scenarios Hibs will stay up.

What are the other alternatives?

[CropleyWasGod]

I am really trying to get my head round this, and what it means for Hibs.

Is there any way before next season that Rangers avoid liquidation?

a. Rangers are liquidated and have to: -
i. Start in the 3rd as Newco
ii. SPL Clubs cave in and Newco is allowed in to the SPL

In both these scenarios Hibs will stay up.

What are the other alternatives?

Don't think it's quite as simple for Hibs.

IIRC, a poster on here quoted the SPL rules as "whoever finishes bottom is relegated". Which means, if we finish 12th, we're down... no matter what the RFC postion is.

There could be two vacancies in the SPL next season... the relegated club, and RFC. Maybe 3, if you count Hearts. And then there's the Ross County question... will their ground be up to scratch?