MEADOWXI Posted March 15, 2012 Share Posted March 15, 2012 Give them the ten points back so we can have lots of 'the chase is on rants' leading up to the last OF game, then knock it back off on the 23rd just to see a second paranoid explosions of injustice and by them. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dunlop Don Posted March 15, 2012 Share Posted March 15, 2012 And whilst rangers in administration is a very worthy title i am considering news readers, bloggers and posters alike when i suggest a subtle rebranding of the 'rangers in crisis' catch all heading to something with a bit more zip. I humbly propose: currantbun-uppance Any other ideas for a quick, snappy title for us all to use would be greatly appreciated. Thanks to all who have contributed to this thread, its been magical so far. I have been thinking this too, a title which the country's non-OF fans can unite behind will add weight to the argument. I was thinking 'The Fitba Spring' inspired by the people of the Middle East rising up and taking control of their futures rather than being controlled and manipulated by a small group of despot dictators. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chico Posted March 15, 2012 Share Posted March 15, 2012 So.. Administrators vs Ticketus in Court And Alex Thomson on the dual contracts :) Some more joy from the saga, just after I was losing hope last night. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gaspode Posted March 15, 2012 Share Posted March 15, 2012 I've just read about the Ticketus/Duff & Phelps case at the court of session this morning - I see Duff & Phelps are not saying the contract is not valid, just seeking permission from the court to breach the contract. Doesn't this further increase the proof that no one should believe a word that the administrators utter? I'm quite sure that when they have spoken about the Ticketus deal before they have said they were sure it is invalid, not that they were planning on weaselling out of paying it. The administrators believe are seeking legal permission to breach the deal for four years’ future season ticket sales. This action does not mean Duff and Phelps are questioning whether or not the agreement is legally binding, but the insolvency firm are seeking the court's approval to not pay Ticketus the money earned from season ticket sales until 2015.If the request for the breach is allowed, Ticketus would become creditors that the administrators would need to include in any company voluntary agreement needed to bring Rangers out of administration. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
No8. Posted March 15, 2012 Share Posted March 15, 2012 Could always let them come out of administration and Craigy Whyte resume control, he seemed to be steering the ship well prior to it happening. OK OK .... You win 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Homer Thompson Posted March 15, 2012 Share Posted March 15, 2012 I've just read about the Ticketus/Duff & Phelps case at the court of session this morning - I see Duff & Phelps are not saying the contract is not valid, just seeking permission from the court to breach the contract. Doesn't this further increase the proof that no one should believe a word that the administrators utter? I'm quite sure that when they have spoken about the Ticketus deal before they have said they were sure it is invalid, not that they were planning on weaselling out of paying it. Interesting. Especially the bit about them then becoming creditors. Seems a bit of a strange move if a CVA is the intention. At £24m that would put them ahead of any other creditor (except, potentially HMRC after the big tax case) and would, therefore, allow them to block any CVA they werent happy with, and you cant imagine they would be very happy with any p in the pound settlement after being taken to court to have their contract ripped up! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vikingTON Posted March 15, 2012 Share Posted March 15, 2012 (edited) Presumably no-one is stupid enough to bid for the club while Ticketus are taking the main revenue source for the next couple of years. Still, it's a rather pleasing frying pan/fire scenario. Edited March 15, 2012 by vikingTON 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colin M Posted March 15, 2012 Share Posted March 15, 2012 Interesting. Especially the bit about them then becoming creditors. Seems a bit of a strange move if a CVA is the intention. At £24m that would put them ahead of any other creditor (except, potentially HMRC after the big tax case) and would, therefore, allow them to block any CVA they werent happy with, and you cant imagine they would be very happy with any p in the pound settlement after being taken to court to have their contract ripped up! So is it tactical? Perhaps an attempt to force a CVA without HMRC being able to block? But then, that would need Ticketus on board. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fife Saint Posted March 15, 2012 Share Posted March 15, 2012 So is it tactical? Perhaps an attempt to force a CVA without HMRC being able to block? But then, that would need Ticketus on board. Exactly what I was thinking. Ticketus will make up some part of the board you'd imagine. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Homer Thompson Posted March 15, 2012 Share Posted March 15, 2012 So is it tactical? Perhaps an attempt to force a CVA without HMRC being able to block? But then, that would need Ticketus on board. Exactly what I was thinking. Ticketus will make up some part of the board you'd imagine. Indeed. But if Ticketus are going to be "on board", why drag them through the courts now? Why not just come to an agreement about the deal? Going to court to force the issue, kind of, implies that a deal couldnt be agreed. If thats the case, Ticketus are hardly likely to then be part of the takeover and vote through a CVA. Unless, the deal is already done and this is just, as Colin said, tactical to manoeuvre HMRC out of the way. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Granny Danger Posted March 15, 2012 Share Posted March 15, 2012 your joking.....right ?! No. The last time I enquired no-one could recommend an internet connection for the Amstrad. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
~~~ Posted March 15, 2012 Share Posted March 15, 2012 I see everyone is coming out to help Rangers http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/17379986 Irish Premiership champions Linfield are to play Rangers in a friendly before the end of the season to raise money for the crisis-hit Scottish club. Linfield say they hope to stage the game at their Windsor Park ground in late April or early May. Rangers have been regular visitors to the Belfast club for pre-season friendlies but on this occasion they will be the beneficiaries. The debt-ridden Glasgow club entered administration in February BBC Scotland believes Rangers could owe as much as £15m to the tax authorities. On Wednesday night, former Rangers defender Sandy Jardine was in Belfast asking fans to back a fighting fund. It is believed money raised would go towards helping the club while it is in administration. The Scottish Premier League champions beat Linfield 4-1 in a pre-season friendly at Windsor Park last July. The match was part of the Belfast club's 125th anniversary celebrations 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colin M Posted March 15, 2012 Share Posted March 15, 2012 Indeed. But if Ticketus are going to be "on board", why drag them through the courts now? Why not just come to an agreement about the deal? Going to court to force the issue, kind of, implies that a deal couldnt be agreed. If thats the case, Ticketus are hardly likely to then be part of the takeover and vote through a CVA. Unless, the deal is already done and this is just, as Colin said, tactical to manoeuvre HMRC out of the way. It would seem a bit contrived though as you say. Is it possible that making Ticketus a creditor would maneouvre Whyte out the picture? Could that be the motive? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Granny Danger Posted March 15, 2012 Share Posted March 15, 2012 Indeed. But if Ticketus are going to be "on board", why drag them through the courts now? Why not just come to an agreement about the deal? Going to court to force the issue, kind of, implies that a deal couldnt be agreed. If thats the case, Ticketus are hardly likely to then be part of the takeover and vote through a CVA. Unless, the deal is already done and this is just, as Colin said, tactical to manoeuvre HMRC out of the way. Only way Ticketus would accept any sort of deal like this is if they doubt their own legal position. Don't know what the position would be if Rangers come out of administration but I've previously said that I couldn't see how the Ticketus deal could be enforceable in a liquidation/newco scenario. So maybe a CVA and Rangers coming out of administration is the best that Ticketus can hope for. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pollymac Posted March 15, 2012 Share Posted March 15, 2012 What is wrong with saying that? It would also mean there was no reason to block the Cousin deal. The sole reason for the 10 point penalty was for entering Administration...If Rangers are not in administration then the only course of action is to get the 10 points back I simply cannot see your problem here Edit to add...The 10 points will make absolutely no difference come the end of the season and are the least of our worries There would also be the not too small matter of not having administration protection when moneys owed to Dunfermline and Dundee Utd fell due (ICT too??) and therefore additional penalties applicable, presumably sporting ones, i.e. a ban from next season's Scottish Cup and additional points removed in the League. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Homer Thompson Posted March 15, 2012 Share Posted March 15, 2012 Only way Ticketus would accept any sort of deal like this is if they doubt their own legal position. Don't know what the position would be if Rangers come out of administration but I've previously said that I couldn't see how the Ticketus deal could be enforceable in a liquidation/newco scenario. So maybe a CVA and Rangers coming out of administration is the best that Ticketus can hope for. Good point. Im still not sure it answers the question of why D&P would take Ticketus to court to have them instated as a creditor when that would mean they could veto a CVA. Unless the deal is already done, but then why go to court? I guess another possibility is that D&P, and the potential buyers, have worked out that the Ticketus deal would be enforceable in a liquidation/newco scenario and this is their attempt to get out of it and make the club more attractive to a buyer 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Granny Danger Posted March 15, 2012 Share Posted March 15, 2012 Good point. Im still not sure it answers the question of why D&P would take Ticketus to court to have them instated as a creditor when that would mean they could veto a CVA. Unless the deal is already done, but then why go to court? I guess another possibility is that D&P, and the potential buyers, have worked out that the Ticketus deal would be enforceable in a liquidation/newco scenario and this is their attempt to get out of it and make the club more attractive to a buyer I know it's all speculation but maybe it's to protect Ticketus reputation with their own investors. It's one thing for the court to void the contract (not the same as saying the contract was invalid) it's another thing for Ticketus to publically admit they fucked up. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pollymac Posted March 15, 2012 Share Posted March 15, 2012 So is it tactical? Perhaps an attempt to force a CVA without HMRC being able to block? But then, that would need Ticketus on board. The problem with that, is that you assume HMRC are creditors for less than 25% of the moneys owed, which would mean that the only bill at the moment being considered from HMRC is the £9m or so PAYE/NIC but what about the now uncontested £2.8m from the 'small tax case' ergo an overall creditor exposure of £47m or so? Are they really so far up to their necks in it? ~£12m HMRC £24m Ticketus £11m to who else? Be that as it may, clearly the 'big tax case' is being discounted, which would indeed allow them to come out of administration, only to go straight back in when that particular finding is published (based on the assumption that they lose their appeal). If they win, HMRC have already stated they will immediately appeal any reverse. All of this is also discounting the fact that an administrator cannot add additional creditors to those in existence in order to shaft said (existing) creditors. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Homer Thompson Posted March 15, 2012 Share Posted March 15, 2012 I know it's all speculation but maybe it's to protect Ticketus reputation with their own investors. It's one thing for the court to void the contract (not the same as saying the contract was invalid) it's another thing for Ticketus to publically admit they fucked up. Could be. The problem with that, is that you assume HMRC are creditors for less than 25% of the moneys owed, which would mean that the only bill at the moment being considered from HMRC is the £9m or so PAYE/NIC but what about the now uncontested £2.8m from the 'small tax case' ergo an overall creditor exposure of £47m or so? Are they really so far up to their necks in it? ~£12m HMRC £24m Ticketus £11m to who else? Ah, good point. I was getting my maths confused, thinking that with Ticketus being owed c2 times what HMRC are (minus the big tax case) they would have the deciding vote, as it were. But you're quite right, they wouldnt, unless there was another wedge of cash out there owed to other people. What that would mean, though I think(!), is that HMRC would no longer be able to block any CVA, as they wouldnt hold 25% of the debt, which they currently do. Be that as it may, clearly the 'big tax case' is being discounted, which would indeed allow them to come out of administration, only to go straight back in when that particular finding is published (based on the assumption that they lose their appeal). If they win, HMRC have already stated they will immediately appeal any reverse. All of this is also discounting the fact that an administrator cannot add additional creditors to those in existence in order to shaft said (existing) creditors. Interesting, didnt know that. However, presumably, that doesnt preclude them adding "genuine" creditors who just happen to have the by-product of shafting someone else? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HibeeJibee Posted March 15, 2012 Share Posted March 15, 2012 I see everyone is coming out to help Rangers http://www.bbc.co.uk...otball/17379986 That's Linfield confirmed, and a RST rep said on the radio yesterday that Hamburg are coming-over too. How long until Chelsea? 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.