Not yet.Quote:
Originally Posted by Spike Mandela
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.
Printable View
Not yet.Quote:
Originally Posted by Spike Mandela
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.
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!)Quote:
Originally Posted by Spike Mandela
Leaves the taxpayers well and truly out of the money!:agree:
Does it not start until next season's STs? Was assuming it included the current season. Even better if not. :greengrinQuote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
SSN reporting that a sheriff has ruled that the ticketus deal stands!!
GITYU rangers!!! :agree:
Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
And Craigy boy still owns 80% of the shares......,
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by JeMeSouviens
So.. this season has still to be paid for, and the next 3.
:flag:
http://news.stv.tv/scotland/west-cen...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?
How do you mean?Quote:
Originally Posted by ancienthibby
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by keekaboo
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by JeMeSouviens
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!
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.
More doubt and uncertainty and time lost for the Burrent Cants! :thumbsup: Hopefully one or two parties walk away! GTF! :bye:
Yeah, I have to admit to being in the dark about the property values.Quote:
Originally Posted by ancienthibby
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.....
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.
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:greengrinQuote:
Originally Posted by ancienthibby
If Rangers are liquidated, they not longer exist. They cease to be.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Story So Far...
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!
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
Most especially if HMRC were to be stuffed.
Pins and doll are to hand.:greengrin
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?Quote:
Originally Posted by jgl07
http://www.rangers.co.uk/news/footba...rticle/2690528
Is this the administrators claiming that the judgment means they can tear the Ticketus deal up?
If anyone can make sense of it. Here's the report from Lord Whatsit -
http://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/opinions/2012CSOH55.html
I think it means that they still have that as an option...the implicaitons of them doing so are not clarified though!Quote:
Originally Posted by ballengeich
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by SiMar
The shambles continues!
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.
Super A*sehole's looking a bit blotchy on BBC Scotland news. Must be all the excitement.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by hibs0666
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by NGH
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.
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:
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by ehf
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by BarneyK
Thats why it must not be allowed to happen.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BarneyK
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.
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
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by BarneyK
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by matty_f
Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
There is nobody sniffing glue at Ibrox :faf:
http://youtu.be/H8x_59EjZOs
Looks like a carefully considered response to the Ticketus judgement from Parkhead...
Statement from Parkhead
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by 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:
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:Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
If they continue to overspend once they are out of administration, they will be insolvent again pretty quickly.Quote:
Originally Posted by BarneyK
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 :greengrinQuote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by BarneyK
... F that. What would I do with my Hibs.net then? talk about fitba? :cbQuote:
Originally Posted by BarneyK
Quote:
Originally Posted by greenginger
Sadly not: that would have been the position had there been an effective trust but there isn't.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
Not £24m - it's now £30m paid by Ticketus.
And these guys are investment managers???
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotlan...-west-17489451
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by ehf
It's a surreal situation, right enough, one where Ticketus are complicit in ripping themselves off to the tune of £30 million.Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
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
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by ehf
They will however go through the due legal process to ensure that Rangers 1874 pay up.
"Ticketus don't do walking away"
They need their cash, no?Quote:
Originally Posted by ehf
A juxtaposition? :dunno:Quote:
Originally Posted by BarneyK
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:Quote:
Originally Posted by PaulSmith
There are two possibilities:Quote:
Originally Posted by PaulSmith
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.
Ticketus are not going to chuck any more cash at Rangers now: their contract is worthless.Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
Third scenario.....What if said lawyers did give that advice, and they went ahead anyway?Quote:
Originally Posted by ehf
My point, though, was that the Knights need Ticketus' cash. If what you're saying is correct, then the BK are struggling.Quote:
Originally Posted by ehf
Possible, but very unlikely.Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
Their statement suggests they think otherwise:-Quote:
Originally Posted by ehf
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".
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by 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.Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
For sure.Quote:
Originally Posted by SiMar
The bit I like, though, is that they are determined to hold on to their contract. Which, of course, means more Court time. :agree:
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:Quote:
Originally Posted by jgl07
Good stuff mate :-D
Brilliant :thumbsup:Quote:
Originally Posted by jgl07
Ah, the famous Norwegian Blue. Tore André Flo. The three worst strikers in the SPL.
He was the start of it :-)
:applause: Clever! :greengrinQuote:
Originally Posted by jgl07
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...Quote:
Originally Posted by down-the-slope
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:
Didn't take them long to learn the "correct" terminologyQuote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod