Baxter Parp

Yes, because they would welcome another disaster on this scale, wouldn't they?

As I understand it HMRC object to agreeing CVA's as it's unfair on those who do pay their taxes correctly and on time. Certainly they had no intention of coming to an agreement with Dundee and would have forced Dundee to pay the full amount if they hadn't been a minority creditor. I'd be very surprised if they agreed to some kind of discount with Rangers.

That would be the scenario if they don't go ker-plunk.

No, they actually bought the season tickets, if Rangers go ker-plunk then they are just another creditor.

How could he pay off Rangers debt before he had any connection to them?

Ba-dum tish!

More than likely.

Well, there's still a big, fat elephant in the room.

So they aren't going to walk away from £24m, right.

Sure. They've got a club to sell.

So when they signed the deal he went "Oh, and Rangers don't have anything to do with this, by the way", did he?

Unlikely. Source?

Actually, banks have a duty of care. If they've taken money under false pretences they are duty bound to investigate and, if neccessary give it back. If Rangers renage on the deal then they owe Ticketus £24m, obviously. Rangers do exist, for the moment, and the admins are rather bullish about the possibility of them continuing to exist. The entity cannot be Whyte as Whyte as a person couldn't make the commitment, only Whyte as CEO of Rangers could make the commitment. I'm not sure why you're not grasping this.

On the grounds that they're aren't getting what they paid for, of course. Are you being deliberately obtuse?

From the entity they made the deal with, obviously.

And if that deal falls through, they'll be perfectly entitled to their money back.

Especially if it's true, yes.

Then why are they saying their deal is with Rangers?

How could he have made the deal? Edit: Ah, cheers HB.

Why not? At the time there was no question that he was able to represent Rangers and the deal was made in good faith.

Either Whyte was able to represent Rangers PLC or he wasn't. If he wasn't, Ticketus get their money back, the bank pays their money back. If he was, then the deals still stand. SImple.

Incidentally is there any evidence that the money was paid by "Craig Whyte" and not "Rangers PLC"?I can't understand why you think Rangers will be able to get away with defrauding Ticketus.

If a shady geezer like Whyte has exposed himself in any way I'll be very surprised.

I'd come after you and if I got no redress from you, I'd go after the third party. Essentially the bank has received the money under false pretences.

Not even Rangers.