Baxter Parp Posted March 9, 2012 Share Posted March 9, 2012 They didn't give the money to Rangers PLC. They gave it to Whyte's holding company, Then why are they saying their deal is with Rangers? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
~~~ Posted March 9, 2012 Share Posted March 9, 2012 You asked a question..Itried to answer it for you. Just to pick you up on a few points..The Hearts game was only around 48,000 compared to 50,000 versus Killie How many of these fans were season tickets, around 35 / 40,000? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MEADOWXI Posted March 9, 2012 Share Posted March 9, 2012 (edited) £18Mill of Ticketus money was used to clear Rangers debt with Lloyds. If Lloyds hand it back to Ticketus then Rangers owe Lloyds £18Mill If Lloyds keep it then Rangers owe Ticketus £18Mill + the rest in a form of future sales. Whyte took the money to clear a Rangers debt and I feel sure was smart enough to get it done in Rangers name. The debt is still there - It can be argued if it is to Lloyds or Ticketus but either way it is a debt. Edited March 9, 2012 by MEADOWXI 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drooper Posted March 9, 2012 Share Posted March 9, 2012 Then why are they saying their deal is with Rangers? They would say that, wouldn't they. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Homer Thompson Posted March 9, 2012 Share Posted March 9, 2012 £18Mill of Ticketus money was used to clear Rangers debt with Lloyds. If Lloyds hand it back to Ticketus then Rangers owe Lloyds £18Mill If Lloyds keep it the Rangers owe Ticketus £18Mill + the rest in a form of future sales. Whyte took the money to clear a Rangers debt and I feel sure was smart enough to get it done in Rangers name. The debt is still there - It can be agrued if it is to Lloyds or Ticketus but either way it is a debt. Except it isnt. Ticketus didnt lend any money to anyone. They bought future season tickets. Had all been well, Rangers would have sold the season tickets, owned by Ticketus, and passed the money onto them. Its nowhere near as simple as a loan may have been 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baxter Parp Posted March 9, 2012 Share Posted March 9, 2012 They would say that, wouldn't they. Especially if it's true, yes. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baxter Parp Posted March 9, 2012 Share Posted March 9, 2012 Except it isnt. Ticketus didnt lend any money to anyone. They bought future season tickets. Had all been well, Rangers would have sold the season tickets, owned by Ticketus, and passed the money onto them. Its nowhere near as simple as a loan may have been And if that deal falls through, they'll be perfectly entitled to their money back. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Broken Algorithms Posted March 9, 2012 Share Posted March 9, 2012 Surely any potential buyer has to realise the significant level of debts that Rangers hold. I'd be a bit amazed if someone wanted to be so financially reckless as to buy a football club, in a league with a smaller financial value, who are currently in administration, owe money to multiple parties and has a tax case sitting above it's head. The only possible groups who would do so are business men who are fans or supporters groups. In the case of the former, I'd imagine that any potential tax bomb coming through in the near future has to be a bit of a worry. If it is the case of a fans group, then you'd have to say that the extent of Ranger's problems will be more longitudinal. For instance, they may start packing out Ibrox week in week out, but Celtic will have a massive financial advantage. Over the next few years I can't imagine Rangers fans being too happy to sit about watching Celtic catch up with them. The player cuts may have helped the problems temporarily, but they are the least of Rangers worries. They're still hopeful it will help them ease a buyer into purchasing a club which has some function, rather than one reliant on youth players which requires rebuilding . The problem is that the whole situation is an utter shitstorm. Rangers are so scummy on multiple levels that it really has made the situation as clear as mud. D&P might have played a blinder, but then again we could be looking at a situation where individuals realise the gravity of which Rangers tax-case. Hopefully, No.8 has been clutching at straws massively, and that he's misplaced his faith in a few player cuts. Remember the player cuts are just the tip of the iceberg in terms of Ranger's debt. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drooper Posted March 9, 2012 Share Posted March 9, 2012 And if that deal falls through, they'll be perfectly entitled to their money back. From whom, though? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MEADOWXI Posted March 9, 2012 Share Posted March 9, 2012 (edited) Except it isnt. Ticketus didnt lend any money to anyone. They bought future season tickets. Had all been well, Rangers would have sold the season tickets, owned by Ticketus, and passed the money onto them. Its nowhere near as simple as a loan may have been So it was done in Rangers name - Rangers debt/future sales to Ticketus, or Haudit & daudit have to go to Lloyds and say sorry that £18Mill wasn't ours to use can we have it back to give back to Ticketus and sadly that means we still owe you £18Mill - so sorry for all the hassle. Got a feeling this could be tied up in court cases for months which means no early CVA and more points deductions. Edited March 9, 2012 by MEADOWXI 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Homer Thompson Posted March 9, 2012 Share Posted March 9, 2012 Especially if it's true, yes. D&P said the money hadnt gone into Rangers accounts. So one of them is lying And if that deal falls through, they'll be perfectly entitled to their money back. On what grounds? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Londoner Posted March 9, 2012 Share Posted March 9, 2012 I doubt any serious bidders will exist who will stomach that exposure. It's usual for them to say people are interested, in the same vein an estate agent will tell you someone else is interested in the property you are offering on. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baxter Parp Posted March 9, 2012 Share Posted March 9, 2012 From whom, though? From the entity they made the deal with, obviously. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baxter Parp Posted March 9, 2012 Share Posted March 9, 2012 On what grounds? On the grounds that they're aren't getting what they paid for, of course. Are you being deliberately obtuse? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain_Sensible Posted March 9, 2012 Share Posted March 9, 2012 Any attempt to implement any sort of "tax" that goes against current financial agreements in regards to revenue sharing made by the clubs would almost certainly face a legal challenge by Celtic as a PLC Scenario is Rangers go into liquidation. Celtic no longer have Rangers to give them the 2 votes to oppose new arrangements. Clubs agree new financial arrangements. Its a new world order if Rangers go into liquidation. The Old Firm's days are numbered. Goodbye bigots! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Homer Thompson Posted March 9, 2012 Share Posted March 9, 2012 So it wa sdone in Rangers name - Rangers debt/future sales to Ticketus, or Haudit & daudit have to go to Lloyds and say sorry that £18Mill wasn't ours to use can we have it back to give back to Ticketus and sadly that means we still owe you £18Mill - so sory for all the hassle. Got a feeling this could be tied up in court cases for months which means no early CVA and more points deductions. Why would D&P have to back to Lloyds and take the money back? Neither party cares, particularly, where the money came from Either Ticketus did a deal with Rangers or they did it with Whyte. If it was with Rangers, then they stand to lose out, massively, if the club is liquidated. If its with Whyte, then they didnt do proper due diligence on the deal and, potentially, are stuffed. I dont see how either scenario involves Lloyds, or Rangers PLC paying back any money. From the entity they made the deal with, obviously. Except the entity they made the deal with doesnt exist, if its Rangers and they are liquidated. Alternatively, the entity is Whyte and Ticketus pursue him for it. Neither scenario results in Ticketus getting their £18m back from Lloyds. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Homer Thompson Posted March 9, 2012 Share Posted March 9, 2012 On the grounds that they're aren't getting what they paid for, of course. Are you being deliberately obtuse? But they are. They already "own" the season tickets. If Rangers fold and there are no season tickets to sell, thats a whole other issue. It still doesnt mean Ticketus simply get their money back. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pollymac Posted March 9, 2012 Share Posted March 9, 2012 Hopefully, No.8 has been clutching at straws massively, and that he's misplaced his faith in a few player cuts. Remember the player cuts are just the tip of the iceberg in terms of Ranger's debt. I wouldn't be so sure. After all No.8 told us all last year about Whyte being a billionaire. :lol: 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Granny Danger Posted March 9, 2012 Share Posted March 9, 2012 I doubt any serious bidders will exist who will stomach that exposure. It's usual for them to say people are interested, in the same vein an estate agent will tell you someone else is interested in the property you are offering on. If there is a buy-out the best outcome would be the new owner to be an even bigger crook than Whyte. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baxter Parp Posted March 9, 2012 Share Posted March 9, 2012 Why would D&P have to back to Lloyds and take the money back? Neither party cares, particularly, where the money came from Either Ticketus did a deal with Rangers or they did it with Whyte. If it was with Rangers, then they stand to lose out, massively, if the club is liquidated. If its with Whyte, then they didnt do proper due diligence on the deal and, potentially, are stuffed. I dont see how either scenario involves Lloyds, or Rangers PLC paying back any money. 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. Except the entity they made the deal with doesnt exist, if its Rangers and they are liquidated. Alternatively, the entity is Whyte and Ticketus pursue him for it. Neither scenario results in Ticketus getting their £18m back from Lloyds. 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. 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.