Would that include the Blue *****s consortium, that includes Ticketus?Quote:
Originally Posted by keekaboo
Printable View
Would that include the Blue *****s consortium, that includes Ticketus?Quote:
Originally Posted by keekaboo
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.
I doubt it.Quote:
Originally Posted by jgl07
The Blue Knights bid still represents Ticketus' best chance of getting their money back.
@TonyMcKelvie: The Memorandum of Offer issued (by Admins) invited interested parties to assume that "no future revenue needs to be committed to Ticketus"
:rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by green glory
Only a fule wood do that.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Newry Hibs
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).Quote:
Originally Posted by jgl07
Quote:
Originally Posted by dan sarf
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by johnrebus
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 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
Or to put it another way ' see you both back in Court another day'.Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
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.
Yeah. That's about it.Quote:
Originally Posted by johnrebus
Cheers.Quote:
Originally Posted by Seveno
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
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?Quote:
Originally Posted by Seveno
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hibs Class
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H8x_5...e_gdata_player
Beware of language though!
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?
There's no need to get the hump :greengrinQuote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
He's off on some pyramid selling scheme with his mate, wee Mr Whyte.Quote:
Originally Posted by blindsummit
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by stokesmessiah
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.
Magic - cheers.Quote:
Originally Posted by PatHead
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
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
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?Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
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!
Sorry, my question wasn't meant to sound argumentative. It's Friday, and my brain is slipping into the weekend. :greengrinQuote:
Originally Posted by ancienthibby
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.
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.
Never took it that way - like most posters in this thread, I am punching in the dark!:agree:Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
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:
I was offered 20 camels for my wife once but I insisted on Benson and Hedges.