Generic Sevco / Rangers meltdown thread

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Smidge

That's what I heard....but if the securities are not lodged at Companies House, then their validity is definitely in question.

Still can't get my head around the Ticketus thing, unless it was a giant scam. Gut feeling is that I should made "allegedly" there :greengrin

---

Sounds to me like Whyte (rather than Rangers) borrowed the money offering the future income as security. The debt falls to be paid only as and when the ST money is paid by the punters. Meanwhile Whyte 'owes' Ticketus for the funding but it's deferred, uses the money to pay off Lloyds so Rangers owe Whyte for that immediately. I suspect there would be a few interim companies involved though.

One bit that I'm struggling with though, this would all have to be done before the takeover, which means Murray would have to have known about it - they wouldn't take a cross-guarantee without the owner's consent would they? I suppose some sort of bridging finance is possible.

As with your 'allegedly', I ought to stress this is all my opinion and might not have any relation to the reality of the situation.

Edit: Beaten to it all by CropleyWasGod and Smidge..

I think Whyte gambled on Champions League football to help their cash flow. When they were knocked out the Champions League before the season started his plans fell apart

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Caversham Green

Sounds to me like Whyte (rather than Rangers) borrowed the money offering the future income as security. The debt falls to be paid only as and when the ST money is paid by the punters. Meanwhile Whyte 'owes' Ticketus for the funding but it's deferred, uses the money to pay off Lloyds so Rangers owe Whyte for that immediately. I suspect there would be a few interim companies involved though.

One bit that I'm struggling with though, this would all have to be done before the takeover, which means Murray would have to have known about it - they wouldn't take a cross-guarantee without the owner's consent would they? I suppose some sort of bridging finance is possible.

As with your 'allegedly', I ought to stress this is all my opinion and might not have any relation to the reality of the situation.

---

The Ticketus money was with CW's solicitors before the takeover.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod

The Ticketus money was with CW's solicitors before the takeover.

---

How would he have the right to do this, if he is not the owner??? :confused:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LeithenHibby

How would he have the right to do this, if he is not the owner??? :confused:

---

Indeed.

As Cav said, Sir D Murray must have known.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod

The Ticketus money was with CW's solicitors before the takeover.

---

"Allegedly" :wink:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod

Indeed.

As Cav said, Sir D Murray must have known.

---

The plot thickens :greengrin

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PaSaikouKujabi

Every SPL club should walk away from the SPL and set up their own league and leave the old firm to play in their own league.

---

This.

It's the only hope for Professional Scottish Football to survive, other than as a vestigal appendix to the corrupt Ugly Sisters.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LeithenHibby

How would he have the right to do this, if he is not the owner??? :confused:

---

The money could have been forwarded by Ticketus on a contingent basis, being held in escrow until certain conditions were met. In this case, that would have been when Whyte took control of Rangers under the Share Purchase Agreement. The funds were then released to him/his company so that Lloyds could be repaid. Don't think it is necessarily the case that Murray would have known, but negligent if his advisors didn't get the indepth detail of where the cash was coming from. Speaking from experience as well, I would have thought that Lloyds' part in this would be under greater scrutiny if they weren't 100% sure where the funds were coming from, under anti-money laundering legislation.

All speculation and based on hypotheticals of course.....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod

Indeed.

As Cav said, Sir D Murray must have known.

---

Perhaps that is why SDM is so p!ssed off ... And the administrator has such a serious looking face :greengrin :greengrin

CW may well be out his depth with this one ...

What a bloody farce
i hope they get Shafted every way possible

There's no need for Murray to be part of the deal, it could be done directly between Ticketus and Whyte, then held in escrow.

It sounds to me as though the money was held in escrow until the takeover is complete, but did not go direct to RFC to pay Lloyds but instead went to another group company and then Lloyds.

The trigger to release the funds could quite well have been on contract signature when Whyte took control of RFC.

The kicker could be, that Ticketus are not on the list of creditors for any CVA. Instead it is one of Whytes companies, so he can manipulate which way the vote on any CVA goes.

For those of you not familiar with the term. Escrow is where something is held by a third party until certain conditions are met, and then that item or part of the item is released. A bit like getting a trusted mate to hold your stakes when you bet on a game of pool down the pub.

Sorry if that's condescending, it's not meant to be.

Yours
aDONis

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by aDONis

It sounds as though the money was held in escrow until the takeover is complete, but did not go direct to RFC to pay Lloyds but instead went to another group company and then Lloyds.

The trigger to release the funds could quite well have been on contract signature when Whyte took control of RFC.

The kicker could be, that Ticketus are not on the list of creditors for any CVA. Instead it is one of Whytes companies, so he can manipulate which way the vote on any CVA goes.

For those of you not familiar with the term. Escrow is where something is held by a third party until certain conditions are met, and then that item or part of the item is released. A bit like getting a trusted mate to hold your stakes when you bet on a game of pool down the pub.

Sorry if that's condescending, it's not meant to be.

Yours
aDONis

---

But that same company will be a debtor to RFC for £24m

Also... if CW is owed £18m, and HMRC £9m at the moment, he can't get the 75% majority he needs to bring the company out of administration.

I'm lost and I now have no idea why they are in administration and who they owe money to and why?!

Also have no idea why this is being done now when the tax thing is imminent? Is this a way to avoid it?

I found the administrators completely incredible on the question of cash at the bank, which a number of reporters questioned them on.

Their standard answer was 'we have yet to conduct an examination of that', or words to that effect.

Surely that's about the first thing an administrator gets to grip with - the cash position, all transactions in the past week, month, etc, who authorises payments, what the cash flow is, etc??

On all these, they put up a huge deflect shield.

One thing we did learn was that only a down payment has been made for Jelavic.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod

But that same company will be a debtor to RFC for £24m

Also... if CW is owed £18m, and HMRC £9m at the moment, he can't get the 75% majority he needs to bring the company out of administration.

---

No, RFC owe the £18m to Craig Whyte's company.

Also as I understand it, RFC are disputing the £9m figure and claim it's only about half of that (only a rumour mind).

So the potential CVA percentages could be closer than you and I think.

However, I think the fundamental problem is that RFC are losing money quicker than Whyte can plug the gaps, and the situation was begining to spiral. It certainly sounds as though things like the big tax case have moved from being a chance of happening to likely to happen.

From a business point of view and faced with all of that, you've got to try and clear the decks quickly and realise what you can.

What I'm not sure of, is how much of the big-tax liablilty would be used in any Creditors calculation. If the creditors percentages are tight, what discretion is there in only recognising a small percentage of the big-tax. (Not that I'm suggesting any sort of pre-pack a la Leeds United). :wink:

We're now in the incredible situation whereby the Administrators are business associates of CW, at the very least 'CW Friendly'.

How can anyone possibly trust that there will be any outcome other than what CW has planned all along, that of getting Rangers for nothing and magically removing all the debt?

As for the Ticketus money, and the fact that CW didn't actually have the money to takeover Rangers, it has been public knowledge since last summer. Quite how the mainstream press thought that it wasn't even worth investigating those calims until know is quite incredible.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by keekaboo

We're now in the incredible situation whereby the Administrators are business associates of CW, at the very least 'CW Friendly'.

How can anyone possibly trust that there will be any outcome other than what CW has planned all along, that of getting Rangers for nothing and magically removing all the debt?

As for the Ticketus money, and the fact that CW didn't actually have the money to takeover Rangers, it has been public knowledge since last summer. Quite how the mainstream press thought that it wasn't even worth investigating those calims until know is quite incredible.

---

He hasn't got it for nothing. He has paid £18m of RFC's cash.... cash which he will have to pay back, and more.

And there is debt... £24m to Ticketus.

As for the cosy-pals bit, I get the feeling that his erstwhile "pals" might be happy to ditch him, if only to stave off any criticism of their integrity. This may be too high-profile for any of the stunts they may have pulled in the past.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Andy74

I'm lost and I now have no idea why they are in administration and who they owe money to and why?!

Also have no idea why this is being done now when the tax thing is imminent? Is this a way to avoid it?

---

I am guessing... from what one of the administrators said, that the "intention" to go into administration was announced to force HMRC to come to an early negotiated settlement on all liabilities. HMRC then called CW's bluff, and went for it themselves. CW then tried to get control back by actually filing for it.

As for avoiding the BTC, I don't think that is likely either. That is clearly in the thoughts of the administrators. My gut feeling is that a negotiated settlement will be done there.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod

As for the cosy-pals bit, I get the feeling that his erstwhile "pals" might be happy to ditch him, if only to stave off any criticism of their integrity. This may be too high-profile for any of the stunts they may have pulled in the past.

---

The entire opening gambit of their statement seemed to be aimed at distancing themselves from being his close acquaintances. However, I am sceptical as it has been suggested elsewhere that they advised him on the takeover itself, this being at odds from their claim to have been brought in the latter stages of 2011.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Smidge

The entire opening gambit of their statement seemed to be aimed at distancing themselves from being his close acquaintances. However, I am sceptical as it has been suggested elsewhere that they advised him on the takeover itself, this being at odds from their claim to have been brought in the latter stages of 2011.

---

Yup, I heard that too.:agree: They know the world is watching... this case is different from any other scam that "may" have been pulled in the past.

SOmeone today said tha the articles surrounding membership of the SPL declare that should a club go out of business, perhaps like rangers... then all they need do is re-apply to the SPL as it is not governed by the articles of association that govern leagues 1, 2 & 3...

If this is the case... dear oh dear..

Moreover, if they get a reduced rate of payment to HMRC, say 30p in the pound... what is the point of anyone paying tax if it can be bypassed

Alex Salmond intervention dragging Celtic into the mud is well dodgy too. For the first minister to declare publically that Scottish Football needs Rangers is appalling.

Me, I wont be voting for SNP or Independence given his biased remarks... keep in mind Salmond tried to drum up interest in Hertz on a state visit to Quatar...

Dreadful state of affairs...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod

I am guessing... from what one of the administrators said, that the "intention" to go into administration was announced to force HMRC to come to an early negotiated settlement on all liabilities. HMRC then called CW's bluff, and went for it themselves. CW then tried to get control back by actually filing for it.

As for avoiding the BTC, I don't think that is likely either. That is clearly in the thoughts of the administrators. My gut feeling is that a negotiated settlement will be done there.

---

And if there is a negotiated settlement, pressure needs to be put on ALL our elected representatives - Westminster and Holyrood - to ensure that HMRC do not settle for anything less than they should. This is entirely separate, in my view, from whatever long-lasting punishment the football authorities should levy for 14 years of financial doping.

(I say 14 years, because the EBT thing kicked in during the largesse of the Advocaat era, and he was appointed in 1998)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Smidge

And if there is a negotiated settlement, pressure needs to be put on ALL our elected representatives - Westminster and Holyrood - to ensure that HMRC do not settle for anything less than they should. This is entirely separate, in my view, from whatever long-lasting punishment the football authorities should levy for 14 years of financial doping.

(I say 14 years, because the EBT thing kicked in during the largesse of the Advocaat era, and he was appointed in 1998)

---

Agreed, but the words "blood" and "stone" come to mind.... and I have used them often in discussions with HMRC. What's the most that they could get here? Either:-

1. in a liquidation, a percentage share 75%??, (taking into account Ticketus and others) of the value of MP, Ibrox and the car park.

or 2. allowing them to trade on, and pay off the full whack over the next 10-20 years??? Ohhh, that would be sair!!

or 3. mortgaging the whole lot of the property. Is that feasible?

If that`s the case, then, as someone else on here suggested, all the other SPL clubs (bar Celtc and the other financially cheating club), should upsticks and leave the SPL - bring up Dundee, Ross County and one other for a truly competitive league

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by strummbo

SOmeone today said tha the articles surrounding membership of the SPL declare that should a club go out of business, perhaps like rangers... then all they need do is re-apply to the SPL as it is not governed by the articles of association that govern leagues 1, 2 & 3...

If this is the case... dear oh dear..

Moreover, if they get a reduced rate of payment to HMRC, say 30p in the pound... what is the point of anyone paying tax if it can be bypassed

Alex Salmond intervention dragging Celtic into the mud is well dodgy too. For the first minister to declare publically that Scottish Football needs Rangers is appalling.

Me, I wont be voting for SNP or Independence given his biased remarks... keep in mind Salmond tried to drum up interest in Hertz on a state visit to Quatar...

Dreadful state of affairs...

---

I can only laugh at comments like this.

Salmond would do the same for us, football is a major part of the economy.

If they get away with this we should just bite the bullet, go out and sign Messi and Ronaldo, win the league and cup and then say sorry to everyone but we can't pay our way. It's a total joke if they not only get away with this but also come out of it at the other side smelling of roses and debt free.

Who owns Ticketus? Sounds like something some daft bank would operate .. It better no be RBS or Lloyds or the taxpayer is getting it up them left, right and centre!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TQM

Who owns Ticketus? Sounds like something some daft bank would operate .. It better no be RBS or Lloyds or the taxpayer is getting it up them left, right and centre!

---

lol.

Octopus :agree:

http://www.principlefirst.co.uk/inve.../octopus-vcts/

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TQM

Who owns Ticketus? Sounds like something some daft bank would operate .. It better no be RBS or Lloyds or the taxpayer is getting it up them left, right and centre!

---

I don't know who owns them, but I suspect their sphincter has been rapidly tightning over the last few days, as from what I've seen they are going to be left high and dry!