Yam will do fine they're just as dirty as jambos in my eyesQuote:
Originally Posted by Redford Raj
Printable View
Yam will do fine they're just as dirty as jambos in my eyesQuote:
Originally Posted by Redford Raj
It's a bit of a mad article. On one hand it says that the deal can be ignored. On the other hand it says that the administrators are after £4 million from that deal.Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
With such uncertainty there is no danger that that the admnistrators will get access to the loot unless ordered by a court. And, if it is ordered by a court, then that would indicate that Ticketus do indeed own the tickets after all.
...or from CW.:greengrinQuote:
Originally Posted by Hibbyradge
Can't see it as stealing, TBH. They are trying to have a contract set aside, and the situation returned to where it was before the deal happened.
My confusion is over who had the contract in the first place..... CW or RFC... and I think that's at the heart of the matter here.
Yeah, I got that bit too. But remember that RFC are down £4m in that they paid the VAT on the deal. So, if the deal is set aside, HMRC are due RFC £4m. (or, RFC are due £4m less to HMRC :greengrin)Quote:
Originally Posted by hibs0666
As for it being "mad", we have to remind ourselves that this is football journalists talking. Not to undermine what they have found out in terms of "facts", but sometimes they don't understand the issues. eg STV saying that RFC took VAT off player's wages. :rolleyes:
Yup :confused: not follow following (see what I did there :greengrin) that at allQuote:
Originally Posted by hibs0666
They are saying there is no surrender yet. :wink:Quote:
Originally Posted by TQM
I don't get the bit about " personal rights cannot be assigned ". I would have thought any rights a season ticket holder had ended at the expiry of the season ticket.
Also its been stated this system of Ticketus funding has been on going at Ibrox, all be it on a much smaller scale, for a number of seasons so a precedent of Season tickets being sold on behalf of Ticketus has been established.
Yeah, we need a lawyer :greengrinQuote:
Originally Posted by greenginger
My question is.... in most (all?) contracts, there is a clause stating what law applies, ie English or Scots. Shirley this would have been expressed?
Has he not taken a voluntary 80% pay cut?Quote:
Originally Posted by Seveno
Oy. "Judge not a team by the colour of the strip they choose to wear, although it be an unfortunate choice in the eyes of the righteous". I'm sure that's in the bible. Probably. :greengrinQuote:
Originally Posted by Bo'nessHibee
Absolutely right. Usually the contract does state whether Scots or English Law will govern it. If it is silent then an Action can be raised on the location of the event under the contract which would presumably be Scotland here. Given Ticketus are English and this is their field I'd be surprised if their contracts did not specifically state it would be governmed under English Law but then nothing surprises me about this anymore.Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
Thanks for that.Quote:
Originally Posted by aljo7-0
Your final sentence says it all for me.... as someone else said, given that Ticketus have previous dealings with RFC, one would expect it to be a similar contract to before, and "watertight". That said, maybe no-one has needed to challenge it before.
Do you have any view on the "personal rights" bit?
It's not really my field but by definition a personal right is exactly that it is personal to the individual and cannot be transferred to another. For example if we were neighbours and I granted you a personal right to walk through my garden to the bus stop - then you personally get the right to do so but if you sold your house to Jo Bloggs he would not get the right to as you could not assign it. I would need to give him a fresh right.
I guess the article/administrators are saying that the Season Ticket holders get a personal right to a ticket for each home game for their payment for the Season Ticket money. The personal right must come from Rangers to the seat for each game therefore it cannot be assigned to Ticketus as Ticketus do not own the seats and cannot give the personal right to the Season Ticket holder to use the seat.
But then again I'm a bit confused by this as you would have thought the contract between Ticketus and Rangers was some sort of loan agreement with the repayments due to Ticketus being dependant on how many personal rights Rangers gave out by way of Season Tickets sales rather than Rangers assigning the rights to Ticketus or something like that :greengrin
I would guess that any personal right expires when the season ticket expires, and so the huns would be perfectly within their rights to sell tickets to Ticketus who could then assign tickets as they see fit.Quote:
Originally Posted by aljo7-0
Yup that seems perfectly reasonable. It all comes down to what the contract between the huns and Ticketus states - at the moment this is all guess workQuote:
Originally Posted by hibs0666
Seems odd considering there are no personal rights at the time the contract was made.Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
In any case, I suspect that the security offered by Whyte was from one of his companies where he was able to show that they had cash in the bank at the time that the contract was signed. Don't be surprised if this company is now insolvent.
Considering that Duff and Phelps have been working with Whyte all along, should they have known what he was up to ?
Surely the fact remains that most of the 'ticketus' money was used to pay off Lloyds. If this deal was null 'n voided, then they have to unravel the Lloyds money - in which case its still owed. Otherwise are they really suggesting that they get the £24M back but dont owe Lloyds? This is pure dross from the Daily Rankers.Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
By the way out of interest why is Ibrox called Castle Grayskull? Wasn't that He-Man's pad? He-Man was a goody and Grayskull was the power of all things good!! Wasn't Snake Mountain Skeletor's home? On another note He Man had a shan hair do but i wouldn't tell him that.
It's not about getting the £24m "back". They have already had that... £18m of which went to Lloyds, and the rest is "somewhere".Quote:
Originally Posted by oxymoron
It's about getting off the hook of the Ticketus deal. If they can manage that, they will be much more attractive to a buyer.
Erm no it was an 80% PIE cut.:greengrinQuote:
Originally Posted by ScottB
I am confused by the phrase "personal rights can't be assigned".
As far as I understand it, and I think that this would probably be Ticketus' position - they haven't received the benefit of any personal rights. They have received the transfer of an asset - a certain number of STs to Ibrox for future seasons. To assign personal rights of ST holders, Rangers would have to resell the STs after they've been bought?
Looks like Keith Jackson has misinterpreted something. I have no doubt that D&P will be trying everything to get out of the Ticketus contract, but I'm not convinced this would be the right angle. As I've said before, I think there must be more to the contract - that Rangers are Ticketus' agent for selling the STs to the general public and are obligated to pass on the proceeds of sales to Ticketus. D&P might be trying to set aside that element of the contract (and who can blame them for that), but Ticketus could rightly say, give us our £24.4m back then please. That has disappeared - via Lloyds and other unknown destinations - so they would then rank as an unsecured creditor.
Not wishing to hijack the thread but I asked the same thing a while back and the answer I got was that nobody ever won at castle greyskull. I wasn't really satisfied with that but nobody has given me a better answer.Quote:
Originally Posted by Thecat23
... you may be right on that. As I said on an earlier post, it's difficult sometimes (but fun) to extricate the technical issues when they're being reported by non-technical people.Quote:
Originally Posted by Smidge
As a non-lawyer, though, I am confused by the personal rights thing too. As I saw it, Ticketus had bought and paid for the tickets. End of.
Is the "personal" thing perhaps about CW and the apparent fact that he/RFCG or whoever entered into a contract with Ticketus, rather than RFC?
Ah right, never knew that. They can't call it that any more as more teams seem to be picking up points there :greengrinQuote:
Originally Posted by aussie_hibee
The answer is that a clever young entrepreneur came along and erected a giant plastic version of a popular toy around Ibrox. Although it looked pretty ominous, the hun hordes thought that it looked pretty cool.Quote:
Originally Posted by aussie_hibee
What they did not notice though was that said entrepreneur had sold what was inside. One day, the hun hordes woke up to find that their club was in fact just an empty shell.
Simples. :cb
Brilliant :top marksQuote:
Originally Posted by Seveno
Quote:
Originally Posted by johnrebus
:aok:
And let somebody else take the blame for it anaw!!
Er, I see that it's been written by those two well respected city and business reporters Traynor and Jackson! Nuff said I think!Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
Sent from another universe!
To be fair to them both, it was Jackson who was talking about CW using the Ticketus money to pay off LBG as long ago as last summer. Traynor has come to it later, but he has been banging that particular drum for a while now and has not been soft on CWQuote:
Originally Posted by John_the_angus_hibby
It's nearly 15 years since I graduated with an honours degree in law and I never practiced, so I'm really rusty on this point. However, I have a niggly feeling that there could be something in corporate entities being able to have "personal" rights - they are not personal in the sense of belonging to a person, but personal in the sense of only applicable to them.Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
Still, I'm with you in that as far as I know, Ticketus took the assignment of nothing - they bought the tickets outright at a discount. The administrators may have the right to cancel the contract, in which case they will rank as an unsecured creditor for their £24.4m, but given the loopholes being sought, I suspect it is nowhere near as simple as that!