Tio Pepe Posted March 9, 2012 Share Posted March 9, 2012 Duff & Phelps say that the £24 million from Octopus Investments/Ticketus never reached Rangers' account. The funds from Ticketus didn't go through the club's account. They went through another company's account . They also went through that account at a time when that company and Whyte had no connection with Rangers apart from prospective bidder. I can see how under these circumstances that D&P are able to argue that the £24 million has nothing to do with Rangers. The view that the Ticketus deal is nothing to do with Rangers is undermined by the legal action the administrators are taking to recover the balance of the monies paid which currently reside in a bank account belonging to Whyte's solicitors. If the ticket deal is nothing to do with Rangers then neither are those funds. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fife Saint Posted March 9, 2012 Share Posted March 9, 2012 What a glorious mess. Heart-warming stuff. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GreenockRover Posted March 9, 2012 Share Posted March 9, 2012 Tell you something gents..... this is throwing up a dizzying amount of potential litigations here and this maze of companies, shell companies, holding companies and so on is even leaving me a little dazed here and I have experience in this field ! (I thought) Lets look a bit at this... "The firm, which has long experience in deals with football clubs in severe financial difficulty, believes that the arrangement would stand regardless of whether Rangers' assets are sold to a new company and the old one liquidated.." Key word - believes. There is a genuine possibility that the LONDON based company (Octopus) have overlooked that they are dealing with Scots Law in this instance and there are precedents that might make this belief wrong. "It has stated it has already bought the season tickets from Rangers FC Plc, not loaned the club money, and it is therefore the legal owner.." Oh dear. This is their problem right here. If they have bought these as a product, they are absolutely fcuked if that product is not forthcoming due to Rangers FC Plc being liquidated. (In pretty much the same way that if I "buy" 100 cars from a future product run and the manufacturer goes tits up - my money does too) ! "Last week the company owned by Octopus Investments said it had "an obligation to its investors to pursue all avenues to ensure that the ticket purchase agreement it entered into with the club is honoured, and we are committed to going to the lengths necessary to ensure that the future of the club is preserved and its agreement with Ticketus fulfilled." Simple translation here..... "It's possible the little b*****d has pulled a fast one on us here and instead of us managing to make a fast buck for you investors, and ourselves of course, via these discounted futures (season tickets) we might have, as we Londoners say.....'bought a lemon'...and a fcuking BIG one at that. Sorry." Investments can go DOWN as well as UP and all that. In summary - Craig Whyte is the shark in the water and Ticketus/Octopus are thrashing around trying to get the fcuk out of the water ! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
welshbairn Posted March 9, 2012 Share Posted March 9, 2012 So That would mean they would be propping up division 3 That's my dream senario. Rangers lose all points for fielding improperly registered players and are thus demoted on footballing reasons to Div 1, ie they've got the least points in the SPL. The SFL with their much greater powers of sanctions over financial misbehaviour relegate them to Div 3. Chick Young and Doncaster's wet dream of debt free Newco Rangers getting invited straight back into the SPL gets blown out of the water.. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baxter Parp Posted March 9, 2012 Share Posted March 9, 2012 It's not like you to be wrong, Harry. Ticketus bought the rights to future season ticket sales, on the assumption that Rangers fans would continue to buy those tickets. If those tickets are now not sold - due to Rangers ceasing to exist or anything else - Ticketus' money is gone. They chose to speculate on Rangers continuing to sell season tickets, and if Rangers now go bust and there aren't any season tickets to sell, then tough shit for them. No, they actually bought the season tickets, if Rangers go ker-plunk then they are just another creditor. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheBeither Posted March 9, 2012 Share Posted March 9, 2012 My head hurts. Just liquidate them already 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jacksgranda Posted March 9, 2012 Share Posted March 9, 2012 Tell you something gents..... this is throwing up a dizzying amount of potential litigations here and this maze of companies, shell companies, holding companies and so on is even leaving me a little dazed here and I have experience in this field ! (I thought) Lets look a bit at this... "The firm, which has long experience in deals with football clubs in severe financial difficulty, believes that the arrangement would stand regardless of whether Rangers' assets are sold to a new company and the old one liquidated.." Key word - believes. There is a genuine possibility that the LONDON based company (Octopus) have overlooked that they are dealing with Scots Law in this instance and there are precedents that might make this belief wrong. "It has stated it has already bought the season tickets from Rangers FC Plc, not loaned the club money, and it is therefore the legal owner.." Oh dear. This is their problem right here. If they have bought these as a product, they are absolutely fcuked if that product is not forthcoming due to Rangers FC Plc being liquidated. (In pretty much the same way that if I "buy" 100 cars from a future product run and the manufacturer goes tits up - my money does too) ! "Last week the company owned by Octopus Investments said it had "an obligation to its investors to pursue all avenues to ensure that the ticket purchase agreement it entered into with the club is honoured, and we are committed to going to the lengths necessary to ensure that the future of the club is preserved and its agreement with Ticketus fulfilled." Simple translation here..... "It's possible the little b*****d has pulled a fast one on us here and instead of us managing to make a fast buck for you investors, and ourselves of course, via these discounted futures (season tickets) we might have, as we Londoners say.....'bought a lemon'...and a fcuking BIG one at that. Sorry." Investments can go DOWN as well as UP and all that. In summary - Craig Whyte is the shark in the water and Ticketus/Octopus are thrashing around trying to get the fcuk out of the water ! This Whyte boy is not a bit slow, is he? I can't help having a bit of grudging respect for him, he seems to have messed up Rangers, Ticketus, HMRC, Dundee United, Hearts and Dunfermline. Some boy! (Not that I think it's a good thing that DU, Hearts & the Pars are suffering financially.) 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
welshbairn Posted March 9, 2012 Share Posted March 9, 2012 The view that the Ticketus deal is nothing to do with Rangers is undermined by the legal action the administrators are taking to recover the balance of the monies paid which currently reside in a bank account belonging to Whyte's solicitors. If the ticket deal is nothing to do with Rangers then neither are those funds. The money in the account is Craig Whyte's, however he aquired it. Duff and Phelps accuse Whyte of owing Rangers lots of money, including the £5 million he promised annually as part of his purchase agreement. That's what they'll be arguing in court. It doesn't imply any obligation from Rangers to Ticketus. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HibeeJibee Posted March 9, 2012 Share Posted March 9, 2012 Away for a day and the thread grows 30-odd pages!! From today's paper I gather that the SFA have bulleted Whyte but delayed on the 2nd-contract thing... administrators confident of pay-cut deal and want to accelerate process of finding a buyer... non-OF clubs to meet about diluting the voting threshold (but not too much) and smoothing the prizemoney allocation. Those items aside, has anything tangible - as opposed to rumourmill - happened? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GreenockRover Posted March 9, 2012 Share Posted March 9, 2012 This Whyte boy is not a bit slow, is he? I can't help having a bit of grudging respect for him, he seems to have messed up Rangers, Ticketus, HMRC, Dundee United, Hearts and Dunfermline. Some boy! (Not that I think it's a good thing that DU, Hearts & the Pars are suffering financially.) Incredible. Just incredible Whyte has probably (allegedly) shafted more people than Ron Jeremy ! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aidan-bufc Posted March 9, 2012 Share Posted March 9, 2012 Im fed up of all these different scenarios ...just destroy these b*****ds now instead of leading them on! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ravelin Posted March 9, 2012 Share Posted March 9, 2012 The view that the Ticketus deal is nothing to do with Rangers is undermined by the legal action the administrators are taking to recover the balance of the monies paid which currently reside in a bank account belonging to Whyte's solicitors. If the ticket deal is nothing to do with Rangers then neither are those funds. Yep, hard to claim on one hand "nowt to do with us mate" in regard to the deal to sell season tickets but on the other hand "it's our cash, honest gov" in relation to the remainder of the money that appears to have come from Ticketus in relation to that so-called deal. All we can say for certainty is that it's just one huge clusterf***k that is going to take weeks, months if not years to all unravel (even if Rangers do die revelations will still be filling the news for god knows how long afterwards). 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
welshbairn Posted March 9, 2012 Share Posted March 9, 2012 Away for a day and the thread grows 30-odd pages!! From today's paper I gather that the SFA have bulleted Whyte but delayed on the 2nd-contract thing... administrators confident of pay-cut deal and want to accelerate process of finding a buyer... non-OF clubs to meet about diluting the voting threshold (but not too much) and smoothing the prizemoney allocation. Those items aside, has anything tangible - as opposed to rumourmill - happened? A couple of Rangers players have accepted wage cuts but negotiations are still going on. Rangers fans are celebrating this, not sure why. Think that's about it. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MacWatt Posted March 9, 2012 Share Posted March 9, 2012 Key word - believes. There is a genuine possibility that the LONDON based company (Octopus) have overlooked that they are dealing with Scots Law in this instance and there are precedents that might make this belief wrong. It will not be the first time that a London based company has proceeded to make a deal in that Northen English province of Scotchland on the mistaken belief that they are using anglo saxon rather than roman law! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GreenockRover Posted March 9, 2012 Share Posted March 9, 2012 meanwhile in the Duff and Phelps office....... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HibeeJibee Posted March 9, 2012 Share Posted March 9, 2012 A couple of Rangers players have accepted wage cuts but negotiations are still going on. Rangers fans are celebrating this, not sure why. Think that's about it. Cheers. I see that the spectre of SPL2 has also raised its hoary head among the non-OF deliberations. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Macshimmy Posted March 9, 2012 Share Posted March 9, 2012 (edited) The money from Ticketus to Whyte was initially put into an escrow account. (3rd party, inaccessible to Whyte) This means they didnt give him the money prior to him buying the club. He couldn't have transferred a penny out of that account until they got their security, but crucially he could use it to show proof of funds to Murray, before giving him his £1, and becoming the owner of Rangers, and thus the rights to their future season tickets. Then, he handed over the tickets (meaning they are good if the club continues in its present incarnation) in exchange for the £24m Looks kosher. Oh dearie me. Edited March 9, 2012 by Macshimmy 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
H_B Posted March 9, 2012 Share Posted March 9, 2012 (edited) The money from Ticketus to Whyte was initially put into an escrow account. (3rd party, inaccessible to Whyte) This means they didnt give him the money prior to him buying the club. He couldn't have transferred a penny out of that account until they got their security, but crucially he could use it to show proof of funds to Murray, before giving him his £1, and becoming the owner of Rangers PLC. Yep, that's exactly right. Or at least that's exactly my reading of what happened. Murray said Whyte through Wavetower displayed proof of funds, before he transferred the club to him. I had thought these were funds from elsewhere just lying there, but I think you are spot on. Edited March 9, 2012 by H_B 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
welshbairn Posted March 9, 2012 Share Posted March 9, 2012 The money from Ticketus to Whyte was initially put into an escrow account. (3rd party, inaccessible to Whyte) This means they didnt give him the money prior to him buying the club. He couldn't have transferred a penny out of that account until they got their security, but crucially he could use it to show proof of funds to Murray, before giving him his £1, and becoming the owner of Rangers, and thus the rights to their future season tickets. Then, he handed over the tickets (meaning they are good if the club continues in its present incarnation) in exchange for the £24m Looks kosher. Oh dearie me. Sounds convincing, but source? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EdTheDuck Posted March 9, 2012 Share Posted March 9, 2012 This thread has become like an American comedy sitcom; started off hilariously but by the 3rd series it had descended into schmaltzy drivel that took itself far too seriously. I don’t care about the legal implications or who did what or the speculating, I want to laugh and point and giggle at the misfortune of an evil empire. I suggest the thread is demerged into 2, one for the experts where they can be erudite and another for the facile like me where we can just post gifs and be generally infantile. 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.