wunfellaff Posted June 5, 2012 Share Posted June 5, 2012 i've got a conspiracy theory about this.... someone - still to be revealed - (Duff + Phelps )used ticketus, via octopus investments, to pay off lloyds bank. this imaginary individual did this for several reasons (i) to inject the required capital at the beginning of the saga without getting their hands dirty (ii) to try and claw some of it back eventually via the cva (iii) to transfer the floating charge to their stooge (whyte) so D&P could be brought in as administrators. this scenario assumes that whyte and green are working for someone who will step in once the dirty work of juking hmrc and getting the newco going is finished. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wunfellaff Posted June 5, 2012 Share Posted June 5, 2012 That's a nonsense statement. Admittedly Ticketus got duped here, wether it be through complacency, insufficient investigation or what, but a company like that does not normally hand over £20 million plus on a whim. If they did they'd be bust by now. But it only 1 in a myriad of investments, the octopus has many tentacles. If 2 fail in 30 they still make a profit. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glen Sannox Posted June 5, 2012 Share Posted June 5, 2012 As a bank manager for over 20 years I have failed to understand why Ticketus would advance the vast amount they did without a considerable amount of security/collateral. Even if the advance had been to RFC itself they would have needed to have a fall-back position in place, probably a standard security over the property of the club which at that time was held by Lloyds. Instead they make the loan to Whyte. Why? This is the bit i've struggled with since day one, Ticketus, who I preume answer to shareholders can't possibly expose themselves to that sort of outlay without some binding security in place. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wunfellaff Posted June 5, 2012 Share Posted June 5, 2012 This is the bit i've struggled with since day one, Ticketus, who I preume answer to shareholders can't possibly expose themselves to that sort of outlay without some binding security in place. Read my reply......... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monkey Tennis Posted June 5, 2012 Share Posted June 5, 2012 i've got a conspiracy theory about this.... Yeah. Forgive me, but I've also heard your theory about who coined "succulent lamb". 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chico Posted June 5, 2012 Share Posted June 5, 2012 i've got a conspiracy theory about this.... someone - still to be revealed - used ticketus, via octopus investments, to pay off lloyds bank. this imaginary individual did this for several reasons (i) to inject the required capital at the beginning of the saga without getting their hands dirty (ii) to try and claw some of it back eventually via the cva (iii) to transfer the floating charge to their stooge (whyte) so D&P could be brought in as administrators. this scenario assumes that whyte and green are working for someone who will step in once the dirty work of juking hmrc and getting the newco going is finished. Interesting theory, but if any collision is proved, wouldn't that be fraud on a very large scale? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
T_S_A_R Posted June 5, 2012 Share Posted June 5, 2012 But it only 1 in a myriad of investments, the octopus has many tentacles. If 2 fail in 30 they still make a profit. i looked into octopus when this first started and it seemed like the actual profit made by the investments is less important than the tax relief investors recieve for using the scheme. ticketus itself is a massive tax dodge, investors get 30% income tax relief 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Granny Danger Posted June 5, 2012 Share Posted June 5, 2012 Probably they had a % situation, same as banks. How much loan debt have UK banks written off in the last 5 years? All would have met the banks crieria to make said loans yet the banks fucked up. Ticketus would fall into the same boat, 1 in x deals fail, so they pump up the profits on the others to cover this. WTF is it about Celtic supports talking shite tonight about finance. First the king now you. Yes banks and other financial institutions will accept risk plays a part in their decisions BUT they will do what they can to minimise that risk. As Mixuismagic has said why did they not seek greater security? That's a very valid question that may never be answered. Unless tsar uncovers the conspiracy that is. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wunfellaff Posted June 5, 2012 Share Posted June 5, 2012 WTF is it about Celtic supports talking shite tonight about finance. First the king now you. Yes banks and other financial institutions will accept risk plays a part in their decisions BUT they will do what they can to minimise that risk. As Mixuismagic has said why did they not seek greater security? That's a very valid question that may never be answered. Bollox 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chico Posted June 5, 2012 Share Posted June 5, 2012 This is the bit i've struggled with since day one, Ticketus, who I preume answer to shareholders can't possibly expose themselves to that sort of outlay without some binding security in place. havent we previously been told by journalists that no securities are held over Ibrox or Murray Park? They even checked registers of Scotland information.I questioned it early in the thread as in logical terms Ibrox and MP are the two big fixed assets that you could secure debt on and for me the ticketus deal only made sense if it was secured on the property. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blanco Posted June 5, 2012 Share Posted June 5, 2012 Sums were done earlier in the thread: when you put the amount going through EBTs beside the total amount going on wages, the amount saved through being tax free appears to have allowed "extra" spending to be leveraged amounting to about 5-6% extra. They weren't putting all or most £££ through EBTs. As regards "massive" my point is simply that 5-6%, by definition, isn't massive. I'm not sure why you're bothering with the last bit as I said it didn't need to be massive to be serious or wrong, and therefore punishable. Looking at it objectively, they'd have been streets ahead of all the non-OF clubs with or without EBTs - if it had a tangible benefit it was in competing with Celtic and trying to compete in Europe. But that, again, doesn't change it being serious if proven. Having paid £47m in EBT's over 10 years would have required an outlay of close to £100m to be paid via paye, so they saved in the region of £50m giving an average £5m per year over the 10 years. so for that to equate to a 6% extra spend, rangers must've been spending in the region of £83 m on wages which is nonsense, their wage bill probably averaged out around £30m per season which over that perion then afforded them closer to an extra 17% extra spend which is massive. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hellbhoy Posted June 5, 2012 Share Posted June 5, 2012 People are asking why TICKETUS could be so gullible ! it's easy considering when Ticketus loaned the money over a year ago. When the Shyster took charge of Ibrox there was next to nothing about the EBT's in the news except in rumours and Ticketus never took this into account when sealing the deal. Ticketus must have seen only Murray's crumbling empire and had to sell Ibrox by the way the bank was foreclosing in on Murray for £18 million. Ticketus must have seen an easy opportunity to make money and surely must have seen Whyte as the future owner for years to come and never seen what Whyte was actually going to do and the impending EBT saga that was to surface. Logical conclusion ! Whyte done one over on Ticketus and knew about the EBT scandal and fleeced the gers rotten before the EBT came into the public domain.Ticketus probably never included the EBT fiasco at the time they signed off to Whyte and probably failed to find the proper statutes in Scots law into the bargain because they never included the EBT scandal. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
T_S_A_R Posted June 5, 2012 Share Posted June 5, 2012 Interesting theory, but if any collision is proved, wouldn't that be fraud on a very large scale? the entire country seems to be fraud on a large scale at the moment. tax is for plebs. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chico Posted June 5, 2012 Share Posted June 5, 2012 Having paid £47m in EBT's over 10 years would have required an outlay of close to £100m to be paid via paye, so they saved in the region of £50m giving an average £5m per year over the 10 years. so for that to equate to a 6% extra spend, rangers must've been spending in the region of £83 m on wages which is nonsense, their wage bill probably averaged out around £30m per season which over that perion then afforded them closer to an extra 17% extra spend which is massive. Again, I'll make point that the EBT's seen to have been selectively used to attract certain players or retain others, they werent used on a fixed rate across the entire squad, that gives a greater leverage in attracting players that might have looked at other clubs. Billboard signings or whatever the term is. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
~~~ Posted June 5, 2012 Share Posted June 5, 2012 As a bank manager for over 20 years Your going to be as popular as your average OF fan around here now 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
T_S_A_R Posted June 5, 2012 Share Posted June 5, 2012 People are asking why TICKETUS could be so gullible ! it's easy considering when Ticketus loaned the money over a year ago. When the Shyster took charge of Ibrox there was next to nothing about the EBT's in the news except in rumours and Ticketus never took this into account when sealing the deal. you do realise that investment firms handling hundreds of millions of pounds have sources of information beyond the record, the sun and the star? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chico Posted June 5, 2012 Share Posted June 5, 2012 the entire country seems to be fraud on a large scale at the moment. tax is for plebs. Hmm. Not quite at Greek standards but yeah tax evasion/avoidance is rife. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fife Saint Posted June 5, 2012 Share Posted June 5, 2012 If we go down the title-stripping hypotheses, then it's very difficult to see how you re-award cups. In the league you can expunge all the results, but in the cup they'd eliminated 4 teams prior to the Final, and not just the losing finalist. I understand and agree, but the alternative is equally misrepresentative of the competition. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blanco Posted June 5, 2012 Share Posted June 5, 2012 Again, I'll make point that the EBT's seen to have been selectively used to attract certain players or retain others, they werent used on a fixed rate across the entire squad, that gives a greater leverage in attracting players that might have looked at other clubs. Billboard signings or whatever the term is. I take your point about EBT's being used selectively, but the ammount of money saved is massive regardless of how it was used and still ammounts to a great deal more than an extra 5 or 6% net spend. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
T_S_A_R Posted June 5, 2012 Share Posted June 5, 2012 Hmm. Not quite at Greek standards but yeah tax evasion/avoidance is rife. did you see the panorama program explaining how glaxosmithkline and other companies shift their profits out of the uk into luxembourg? sickening. 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.