Generic Sevco / Rangers meltdown thread

[jonty]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Sorry Jonty, but that reads as spectacularly bad news for the Huns. Ticketus own the Assets of the ST's for 4 years. If CW has diddled them its (literally) criminal, if he hasn't there's a creditor with claim to those assets. I think.

Sorry - meant nothing much in it, as in it's not very long and doesnt go into great depth

Octopus Investments would like to clarify the position of Ticketus with regard to the current Glasgow Rangers coverage.
Ticketus is one of the many entities into which Octopus Protected EIS invests. Ticketus has purchased tickets for Glasgow Rangers games for a number of seasons in advance, as it has done for a number of years previously with the club.
Ticketus does not lend money; Ticketus is the owner of assets - the tickets. Octopus is continuing to work with the administrators and Glasgow Rangers on this matter.

[CropleyWasGod]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Sorry Jonty, but that reads as spectacularly bad news for the Huns. Ticketus own the Assets of the ST's for 4 years. If CW has diddled them its (literally) criminal, if he hasn't there's a creditor with claim to those assets. I think.

Inever saw it as anything else. To me, RFC have always owed £24m to Ticketus.

[Liberal Hibby]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Inever saw it as anything else. To me, RFC have always owed £24m to Ticketus.

Is this why the administrators have honoured season tickets v Killie - because they're not theirs?

[Seveno]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Sorry Jonty, but that reads as spectacularly bad news for the Huns. Ticketus own the Assets of the ST's for 4 years. If CW has diddled them its (literally) criminal, if he hasn't there's a creditor with claim to those assets. I think.

If Rangers go into Liquidation then Ticketus lose the lot. Why they went into these deal with a business on the edge of bankruptcy defies belief.

[ScottB]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

If Rangers go into Liquidation then Ticketus lose the lot. Why they went into these deal with a business on the edge of bankruptcy defies belief.

Which raises the fraud viewpoint, did he promise them security over assets? If he didn't, and Ticketus happily leant a guy with a shady as a room with no lights and no windows past who didn't even own the (already substantially indebted, with huge tax case ahead) club, £24million with no safety nets for themselves then frankly they deserve to lose the lot!

[CropleyWasGod]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

If Rangers go into Liquidation then Ticketus lose the lot. Why they went into these deal with a business on the edge of bankruptcy defies belief.

Not sure that they do lose the lot.

1. they have insurance in place, apparently.

2. in a liquidation, the properties will be sold to pay the creditors, as much as can be realised.

[CropleyWasGod]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Is this why the administrators have honoured season tickets v Killie - because they're not theirs?

Could be

[Andy74]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Inever saw it as anything else. To me, RFC have always owed £24m to Ticketus.

Not really, they owe them the equivalent of £24m of season tickets over the next 4 yrs.

As those seasons aren't upon us yet there's no outstanding debt to them.

They were very clear they don't lend money, they see it as paying for tickets in advance.

[CropleyWasGod]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Not really, they own them the equivalent of £24m of season tickets over the next 4 yrs.

As those seasons aren't upon us yet there's no outstanding debt to them.

They were very clear they don't lend money, they see it as paying for tickets in advance.

In accounting terms, I would agree. However, in cash terms, the capital is still owed.

In fact, Ticketus try to get 50-100% Return for their "investment". I am sure that the first repayment was to have been £9m, presumably for this current year's season tickets, payable last summer. In other words, a £9m return for £6m worth of tickets.

In my mind, therefore, the debt could be £9m for this season, plus £18m for the next 3 seasons.

[Seveno]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Not sure that they do lose the lot.

1. they have insurance in place, apparently.

2. in a liquidation, the properties will be sold to pay the creditors, as much as can be realised.

1. No sane underwriter would write such a risk.

2. What use is a season ticket fo a club that doesn't exist ?


He claimed that one of his other companies were 'underwriting' the risk and this is perhaps why the money appears to have been paid to a company other than Rangers. Time will tell what sort of security they were able to offer.

[Andy74]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

1. No sane underwriter would write such a risk.

2. What use is a season ticket fo a club that doesn't exist ?


He claimed that one of his other companies were 'underwriting' the risk and this is perhaps why the money appears to have been paid to a company other than Rangers. Time will tell what sort of security they were able to offer.

It's not a loan so why would there be security?

They have paid for season tickets in advance.

Rangers then ordinarily resell those tickets at a higher price and give ticketus the cash for the tickets that they owned.

Ticketus also pay a premium to someone for insurance - this will be a lot less than the bump up in the ticket price.

The risk is with the undewriter who ordinarily will be allright as these clubs will generally without fail sell at least these amount of tickets. Would you bet against Rangers selling a lot of season tickets next year even now?

[CropleyWasGod]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

1. No sane underwriter would write such a risk.

2. What use is a season ticket fo a club that doesn't exist ?


He claimed that one of his other companies were 'underwriting' the risk and this is perhaps why the money appears to have been paid to a company other than Rangers. Time will tell what sort of security they were able to offer.

By properties, I meant Ibrox, Murray Park and the Albion.

[Cropley10]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

I think I'll have to lie down as for the first time in my life I support the views of Jambo, Stuart Bathgate who. in an article in the Scotsman this morning, has a real go at Whyte, Salmond and Cameron on the non payment of tax issue. Mind you. it's a pity he doesn't pursue the financial frailties of his beloved HOMFC so vehemently.

For all his madness Vlad has no option but to pay his taxes, and does eventually. If he wants to increase Hearts debt and waste his, and their, money then crack on.

[Cropley10]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

1. No sane underwriter would write such a risk.

2. What use is a season ticket fo a club that doesn't exist ?


He claimed that one of his other companies were 'underwriting' the risk and this is perhaps why the money appears to have been paid to a company other than Rangers. Time will tell what sort of security they were able to offer.

I think the risk is uninsurable, you cannot insure against a financial loss without there being a contingent event, say Ibrox being destroyed by fire or other disaster.

There is no insurance policy, end of.

[jonty]

whyte to stand down.

Nope - thats changing now.
He's taking a step back.

And claims not to have taken a penny from Rangers.

[Sylar]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

whyte to stand dowm.

[jonty]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

twitter, man, twitter :

[jonty]

http://www.rangers.co.uk/news/footba...rticle/2614559

That is why I have decided to take a step back from events so that I do not become a distraction to either that process or to Ally McCoist and the players.Regrettably, I will not be attending tomorrow's match against Kilmarnock. Although I would dearly love to be at Ibrox for the game, my priority is, and will continue to be, to assist the administrators in any way I can to bring this process to as speedy a conclusion as possible.

And they still havent put up a notice on their website stating their in administration. Does a news article count or does it need to be more prominent?

[Captain Trips]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

whyte to stand down.

Nope - thats changing now.
He's taking a step back.

And claims not to have taken a penny from Rangers.

Ye do the dodge the taxman then you turnaround. thats what its all about.

[Gus Fring]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Ye do the dodge the taxman then you turnaround. thats what its all about.

Hokey Cokey folk ken whits gon oa

[Spike Mandela]

Surprise surprise Whyte disappears to his bolthole till all the dirty deeds are done.

[Sylar]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

http://www.rangers.co.uk/news/footba...rticle/2614559



And they still havent put up a notice on their website stating their in administration. Does a news article count or does it need to be more prominent?

I was just curious, as none of the usual suspects were running any such story.

The Rangers fans will be fuming he's not going to be there tomorrow - he probably doesn't want to deal with the venom/protests he'd otherwise have to deal with!

[Caversham Green]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

http://www.octopusinvestments.com/pr...tml?newsId=363
Octopus/Ticketus press release.
nothing much in it.

If taken at face value that actually makes quite a difference to my perception of the deal. Rangers have actually sold the tickets rather than pledged the future income from ticket sales, therefore the VAT is due now, which is why the debt to HMRC is so high. The entry in the balance sheet for the ticket sales would be deferred income rather than a loan creditor i.e. it's not money that will have to go out in the future, it's future sales for which money has (in theory) already come in. The problem in Rangers' case is that it doesn't appear to have come into their account so the balance sheet won't actually balance. In accounting terms there's no corresponding debit to this credit until they can identify where the money did actually go.

It strikes me as an extremely foolish transaction from both sides.

[Smidge]

OK, thinking aloud here.

Octopus/Ticketus state that they have purchased a number of tickets from Rangers and have been doing so for a number of years, though I am guessing not on this scale. It is widely speculated that the current value of tickets they have bought is £24.4m, but this is probably a discounted value. I would hazard a guess that the face value of this tickets would be in the region of at least £40m.

Therefore, they have a contract with Rangers FC in this regard. Under the terms of this contract, the club acts as agent for Ticketus in selling the tickets to the general public - via STs or "walk-ups". The proceeds of the ticket sales then have to be passed onto Ticketus with the football club pocketing a booking fee for their time and energy. As it was widely reported that Rangers had to repay Ticketus a large sum by a certain date last year - mentioned as £9m I think - then presumably the contract states that there are performance targets for the agent, i.e. Rangers. In which case, it is possible that the football club is not in breach of that contract yet as they might not have met a performance target for delivery of income to Ticketus.

The 'debt' to Ticketus could then be construed as the obligations to deliver income from ticket sales at certain future dates, but has not yet crystallised. However, if the administrators have the ability to rip up any contracts, particularly those that impose liabilities upon the club, then Ticketus could be pissing in the wind for their cash. Ignoring the possibility that they have 'insured' the contract in some manner, as has been suggested.

In this analysis, a lot depends on the terms of the contract and when exactly a debt would fall due. However, one thought....if it could be proven that Whyte/Wavetower etc never had any intention of fulfilling the terms of that contract, i.e. an insolvency event was always part of the plan, then I would suggest it sounds quite close to fraud.

Turning back to the question of why the cash didn't go through the football club's account, if they were one disposing of the asset to Ticketus, it is possible that (corporately) a direction was given to settle the cash to their parent company. However, this would have required an asset to be created on the football club's balance sheet, i.e. a debt owed by parent company, or it would have been in settlement of a debt owed to the parent company.

Which brings it back to the case that the Ticketus cash could have wiped out the debt owing from the football club to the parent company. Even if a separate entry was placed on the balance sheet, i.e. football club still owed parent £18m but parent owed football club £24.4m, then the administrators would surely have the right to net these off and pursue the parent company for the difference. However, as the parent company has never filed accounts, I would be very surprised if it had any remaining assets other than the shares in the football club.

[Smidge]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

If taken at face value that actually makes quite a difference to my perception of the deal. Rangers have actually sold the tickets rather than pledged the future income from ticket sales, therefore the VAT is due now, which is why the debt to HMRC is so high. The entry in the balance sheet for the ticket sales would be deferred income rather than a loan creditor i.e. it's not money that will have to go out in the future, it's future sales for which money has (in theory) already come in. The problem in Rangers' case is that it doesn't appear to have come into their account so the balance sheet won't actually balance. In accounting terms there's no corresponding debit to this credit until they can identify where the money did actually go.

It strikes me as an extremely foolish transaction from both sides.

Foolish indeed, but I am fairly sure that Rangers will still have acted as agent for Ticketus in selling the tickets to the general public. This would mean there is another underlying contract (see my analysis just posted).

[jonty]

http://macleodcartoons.blogspot.com/...5ZrmTY.twitter

[GreenPJ]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

whyte to stand down.

Nope - thats changing now.
He's taking a step back.

And claims not to have taken a penny from Rangers.

Is that because the money never went through Rangers in the first instance.

[ScottB]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Is that because the money never went through Rangers in the first instance.

He never took a single penny.

That he did take £24million is entirely separate from not having taken any 1p coins...

[jonty]

Vatican also to pay taxes
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/wo...s-6988938.html

Coincidence........???

[jonty]

SFA to launch investigation.
http://www.scottishfa.co.uk/scottish...11&newsID=9344

The Scottish FA’s previous efforts in obtaining information relevant to the Fit and Proper Person requirement has been restricted by the club's solicitors' continued failure to share information in a timely or detailed manner.

Wont hold breath.