jagfox Posted February 22, 2012 Share Posted February 22, 2012 I think the Tickets are sold? to Ticketus at a reduced rate. Ticketus keep the margin for costs and profits. On a separate front Whyte has applied to take over butterkist...... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pozbaird Posted February 22, 2012 Author Share Posted February 22, 2012 Over one week on, what do we actually know to be fact. No guessing, no conjecture, just fact. 1. Rangers went into administration one week ago. 2. Duff & Phelps appointed administrators. 3. Ticketus deal DID fund the 18m clearing of Lloyds debt. 4. McKay sold to Korean club. Is that it? Have I missed anything that is fact? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
welshbairn Posted February 22, 2012 Share Posted February 22, 2012 Not sure what the whole uproar is on the fact he borrowed against future cash flows to finance the purchase, this is entirely normal in business and indeed the Glazers have done it successfully at Manchester United. He may well have shown proof of funds prior to the purchase but he would have to be an idiot (in a business sense) to use entirely his own cash to fund the purchase. Similarly, he's actually entirely right that no more money should be put in to the business until the adminstration process is complete, it's better to keep your powder dry so to speak (well, assuming he has any powder in the first place...). It's good business sense even if football supporters don't like it. Of course, the fact that he's hidden and twisted the truth should be of concern, but those calling for fraud charges and the like are way off the mark. Anyway, my tuppence on it. Not bothered if Rangers live or die, I just need to see that capitalism doesn't get a bad rap If, as you argue, that what Craig is doing in this case, and has done many times before, is normal practice, then surely it's a massive indictment of capitalism. What he's effectively doing is hiving off assets that should be reserved for paying off creditors, to buy the club, forcing the club into administration by refusing to pay current PAYE and VAT, getting first dibs on remaining assets as a result of preferred creditor status, and ripping of the other creditors again by paying back x in the pound if a CVA is agreed, or nothing if the company gets liquidated. And it's all perfectly honourable business practice! Move along now, nothing happening here.. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Emunim Posted February 22, 2012 Share Posted February 22, 2012 Yeah, I thought the same thing. If I were Ticketus, I would expect the company selling me the tickets to guarantee a certain level of sales, unless I was absolutely certain I could sell the tickets, for example for an event like Glastonbury. Maybe thats where the missing payment came from?? I don't think it's the case that season ticket sales were so low that they did not sell out of the tickets bought by Ticketus, unless Rangers have had a dramatic fall in season ticket sales I hadn't heard about. I think the missing payment is just a result of Whyte deciding that he needed some of that money now, and renegotiating the deal so that Ticketus instead get the money in three years time. And while I have absolutely nothing to back this up with, my understanding was that Ticketus only bought tickets to events likely to be a sell out and only a percentage of those available, so wouldn't need a guarantee of a certain level of sales. Even if Ticketus were concerned about not selling enough, it seems more likely that they'd simply pay less per ticket so they'd still turn a profit if all their tickets didn't sell. The guarantee Whyte is talking about is only to ensure that if Rangers were not selling season tickets or if the price of them had lowered dramatically, Ticketus would be due their money back. But as I say, I could be completely wrong about that. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ross. Posted February 22, 2012 Share Posted February 22, 2012 They might but no trophies at stake = not as much interest The Glasgow cup could suddenly become half important again. Either that or the league cup will have a restructure, with regional leagues put in at the beginning. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Owsley Posted February 22, 2012 Share Posted February 22, 2012 It only cost him a pound to buy Rangers. So he won't be going to jail for financing the purchase with the companies funds or shares. Basket case companies are often flogged for a token sum like that and the new owner is then left to deal with whatever mess the firm is in. I have no idea if anything he has subsequently done is illegal(doubt it) but it's definitely dodgy It's not the pound I was meaning. Integral to the takeover was Whyte being able to pay off Lloyds' £18m. He would never have been given the keys had he not been able to fulfill this promise. That he managed this by securing the money against future season tickets sales is surely borderline illlegal. The more we hear about Whyte, the more I am reminded of this... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HibeeJibee Posted February 22, 2012 Share Posted February 22, 2012 Someone on Kickback posted:- "I've had a message stating that Rangers could be in massive trouble regarding unregistered players through third parties. Don't know the implications, but if true this will be another nail in the coffin." This story has been going around for about a week. What doesn't make sense is why it would only have come to light now. There's no actual ban on third-party ownership in Scotland, AFAIA, as we've never had a Tevez-style scandal. Even if there was, it would have needed to have been deliberately hidden from SFA/SPL - they happily registered them, which requires production of contract. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colin M Posted February 22, 2012 Share Posted February 22, 2012 This story has been going around for about a week. What doesn't make sense is why it would only have come to light now. There's no actual ban on third-party ownership in Scotland, AFAIA, as we've never had a Tevez-style scandal. Even if there was, it would have needed to have been deliberately hidden from SFA/SPL - they happily registered them, which requires production of contract. Well, if he can dupe Ticketus........ I think it's just fantasy. If there's a story to be found on player registration it'll be related to the EBTs - which remains the key element in both what will happen to Rangers, and what should happen to Rangers. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
welshbairn Posted February 22, 2012 Share Posted February 22, 2012 Anyone acquainted with the Financial Assistance act? My link If he broke it by using company assets to buy the club he could be banged up for two years. Maybe that was why he was so keen on keeping quiet about Ticketus, aside from knowing it would wind up the fans if it became public knowledge, 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HibeeJibee Posted February 22, 2012 Share Posted February 22, 2012 At this rate, Whyte will be arrested before the end of the week... On the information publically available, and even upon the rumour, has he actually done anything illegal thusfar? He's told fibs and dealt dastardly, but defininte criminality? Not so sure. Looks like Whyte sold 16 shares in Arsenal that they had owned for a while. Another £200k in his pension fund, allegedly... Hullabaloo on this is bizarre (if he has actually sold them). Did even 5% of Rangers fans know they held shares in Arsenal? Should football clubs actually be holding shares in each other, anyway? It's a weird one, tbh. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reynard Posted February 22, 2012 Share Posted February 22, 2012 It's not the pound I was meaning. Integral to the takeover was Whyte being able to pay off Lloyds' £18m. He would never have been given the keys had he not been able to fulfill this promise. That he managed this by securing the money against future season tickets sales is surely borderline illlegal. The more we hear about Whyte, the more I am reminded of this... Yeah it maybe was integral to the purchase of the club. But the actual club, complete with debt ,was bought for £1. That is the normal way of doing these things anyway. The bank debt was then paid off with the Ticketus money and I'm quite sure the bank weren't giving a flying f**k where that money came from as long as it pinged into their account. From that point on they wash their hands of the whole thing and f**k off. I can't see anything illegal in what he has done. Unethical, dodgy, dubious, fly by night and all the rest of it, yes. But not illegal. Whyte isn't doing anything that plenty of other of his sort do on a daily basis, the only difference is that he is doing it in the spotlight and he surely knew it and consequently doesn't give a f**k. He will do whatever it is he is doing and will f**k off abroad if he hasn't already. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stu Posted February 22, 2012 Share Posted February 22, 2012 Craig Whyte has got one of his namesakes to record a charity single for Rangers. Here's a sneak preview: 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
THE KING Posted February 22, 2012 Share Posted February 22, 2012 hurumph hurumph ohh looky looky maybe maybe witif guess guess 2 plus 2 = mmmmmm. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thelegendthatis Posted February 22, 2012 Share Posted February 22, 2012 On the information publically available, and even upon the rumour, has he actually done anything illegal thusfar? He's told fibs and dealt dastardly, but defininte criminality? Not so sure. True, but of course we as yet do not know the facts and the detail. Bit by bit it is coming out, but we will be depending on the administrators and perhaps liquidators to disclose the truth. Obviously Whyte has a network of inter trading companies some of which are offshore and totally secretive with assets and money having moved around between them. Given the administrators have been in for over a week now there are still no clear factual statements other than the Ticketus money. Surprising as these guys usually go in mob handed 24 hours a day if needed. Usually to strip out unnecessary costs and make what's left attractive to would be purchasers. So until then it is 'it looks like' and 'I think this means'. Especially with Strathclyde Police now taking a direct interest. We await the redundancies and creditors list with some excitement as stage 1! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ribzanelli Posted February 22, 2012 Share Posted February 22, 2012 hurumph hurumph ohh looky looky maybe maybe witif guess guess 2 plus 2 = mmmmmm. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sjc Posted February 22, 2012 Share Posted February 22, 2012 True, but of course we as yet do not know the facts and the detail. Bit by bit it is coming out, but we will be depending on the administrators and perhaps liquidators to disclose the truth. Obviously Whyte has a network of inter trading companies some of which are offshore and totally secretive with assets and money having moved around between them. Given the administrators have been in for over a week now there are still no clear factual statements other than the Ticketus money. Surprising as these guys usually go in mob handed 24 hours a day if needed. Usually to strip out unnecessary costs and make what's left attractive to would be purchasers. So until then it is 'it looks like' and 'I think this means'. Especially with Strathclyde Police now taking a direct interest. We await the redundancies and creditors list with some excitement as stage 1! of course it wouldn't be like our wonderful media to sensationalise a story though, would it ?! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Desert Nomad Posted February 22, 2012 Share Posted February 22, 2012 HMRC statement I particularly like this bit: "Any business that regards paying tax as an optional extra after other expenses are met, or that uses tax collected from employees or customers as working capital, is potentially heading for trouble." 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
STUL Posted February 22, 2012 Share Posted February 22, 2012 While Rangers (1690) are briefly out of the room changing into Rangers (2012). What chance is there of the other clubs banding together and getting rid of the ridiculous 10-2 voting system and then realigning the monies received into the SPL. If that were to happen, I don't think Celtic would be able to say that Rangers going into administration would have no affect on them. Maybe even having a 16 team SPL. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve McQueen Posted February 22, 2012 Share Posted February 22, 2012 While Rangers (1690) are briefly out of the room changing into Rangers (2012). What chance is there of the other clubs banding together and getting rid of the ridiculous 10-2 voting system and then realigning the monies received into the SPL. If that were to happen, I don't think Celtic would be able to say that Rangers going into administration would have no affect on them. Maybe even having a 16 team SPL. 11-1 Voting system may go but we'll end up with the brutal 10 team league that they tried to force through last year. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HibeeJibee Posted February 22, 2012 Share Posted February 22, 2012 (edited) While Rangers (1690) are briefly out of the room changing into Rangers (2012). What chance is there of the other clubs banding together and getting rid of the ridiculous 10-2 voting system and then realigning the monies received into the SPL. It's possible, although as I point out when this is raised, people ignore the fact that small clubs have their reasons for liking the voting system too. Smoothing out the prizemoney is possible, albeit, the argument is then "how". More radical you make it, the more high-end clubs lose-out alongside OF = potentially oppose it. Maybe even having a 16 team SPL. No chance. 11-1 Voting system may go but we'll end up with the brutal 10 team league that they tried to force through last year. It's been interesting that in his statements r.e. Rangers, Regan has always slipped-in a bit about how it shows (somehow) "restructuring" is still needed, including softening relegation. Stuff about "focusing quality" and "best-v-best" still crops-up frequently too. Edited February 22, 2012 by HibeeJibee 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.