Jussy Posted February 22, 2012 Share Posted February 22, 2012 And thats the revelation Traynor was obviously referring to yesterday. Id wager most of the Rangers fans probably didnt even know about them but will be up in arms about it. They seem to be going absolutely mental about it. Apparently everything else he did to their club, the administration, the stealing, the lies, the running it into the ground in a seemingly orchestrated manner, was just about forgiveable, but dear god, not the Arsenal shares. I really don't understand their mentality. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pozbaird Posted February 22, 2012 Author Share Posted February 22, 2012 They seem to be going absolutely mental about it. Apparently everything else he did to their club, the administration, the stealing, the lies, the running it into the ground in a seemingly orchestrated manner, was just about forgiveable, but dear god, not the Arsenal shares. I really don't understand their mentality. ... if any of us ever do understand an Old Firm fans' mentality, that'll be the day we need shot between the eyes. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flood Posted February 22, 2012 Share Posted February 22, 2012 A fair percentage of them still think it is all a media plot to discredit Whyte!!!! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sanny's army 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 -1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jussy Posted February 22, 2012 Share Posted February 22, 2012 Aren't the calls for fraud charges more to do with the missing money which never made it into rangers' accounts rather than the manner in which he funded the takeover? I don't really know or care to be honest, just having quite a bit of a laugh following this saga. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
H_B Posted February 22, 2012 Share Posted February 22, 2012 (edited) Aren't the calls for fraud charges more to do with the missing money which never made it into rangers' accounts rather than the manner in which he funded the takeover? Yes, along with many other things, including guarantees made by Whyte to the previous owner. Edited February 22, 2012 by H_B 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Owsley Posted February 22, 2012 Share Posted February 22, 2012 (edited) 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 But it IS illegal to use a company's shares or funds to finance buying that company. Punishable by up to two years in prison. I said many pages ago that Whyte being arrested could be on the cards. The Record broke the story about the Ticketus deal last June and were subsequently banned, or Keith Jackson was at least. They had to wait until their legal team gave the ok for them to go to town on Whyte at the end of last month. I think the Record and the BBC are being vindicated with each passing day. Edited February 22, 2012 by Owsley 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
H_B Posted February 22, 2012 Share Posted February 22, 2012 Wasn't there one of the other Reservoir Dogs in the news yesterday admitting he'd taken 160K as payment since Whyte took over? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jussy Posted February 22, 2012 Share Posted February 22, 2012 Wasn't there one of the other Reservoir Dogs in the news yesterday admitting he'd taken 160K as payment since Whyte took over? This one? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ross. Posted February 22, 2012 Share Posted February 22, 2012 But it IS illegal to use a company's shares or funds to finance buying that company. Punishable by up to two years in prison. I said many pages ago that Whyte being arrested could be on the cards. But Whyte didn't use the clubs shares or income. I'm reading the situation and it looks to me like Ticketus and Whyte had agreed some sort of futures trade. Ticketus paid up front and Whyte guaranteed delivery of x number of tickets for Rangers games on a certain date. Probably with a cooling off period built in allowing ticketus to cancel the deal within 14 days or so (to mitigate against Whytes takeover collapsing late on, but that was probably not mentioned specifically in the contract). Unethical it might be, but there's an entire industry built on deals like this. To be fair, its usually not tickets to watch football at Ibrox that people agree contracts on, but it's easy enough to swap "number of tickets for Ibrox" with "tonnes of wheat, maize, cotton, etc" and all of a sudden it's a fairly common transaction. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sanny's army Posted February 22, 2012 Share Posted February 22, 2012 But it IS illegal to use a company's shares or funds to finance buying that company. Punishable by up to two years in prison. On the face I genuinely don't see anything wrong, though clearly there will be more to come out. The issue of guarantees is a murky one as you don't physically have to have the cash to get a guarantee (more that you can get the cash if need be) and as long as you can get said guarantee you can perfectly well use the company's cash flow to get a loan. Look up Leveraged Buy Outs, that's exactly what these are and how every private equity firm in the world works. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ross. Posted February 22, 2012 Share Posted February 22, 2012 Look up Leveraged Buy Outs, that's exactly what these are and how every private equity firm in the world works. For those of a Rangers persuasion, I'd look up Southern Cross Healthcare and see how that one worked out...... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Homer Thompson Posted February 22, 2012 Share Posted February 22, 2012 On the face I genuinely don't see anything wrong, though clearly there will be more to come out. The issue of guarantees is a murky one as you don't physically have to have the cash to get a guarantee (more that you can get the cash if need be) and as long as you can get said guarantee you can perfectly well use the company's cash flow to get a loan. Look up Leveraged Buy Outs, that's exactly what these are and how every private equity firm in the world works. I looked it up and this sentence struck me as interesting If the company subsequently defaults on its debts, the LBO transaction will frequently be challenged by creditors or a bankruptcy trustee under a theory of fraudulent transfer.[2] Anyone shed any light on the detail of that and whether or not it might apply to Whyte? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paulo Sergio 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." 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Forest_Fifer Posted February 22, 2012 Share Posted February 22, 2012 That was posted a couple of pages back - allegedly the players were contracted to the holding company. Unless this is another new scam that's been dug up. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
greyman Posted February 22, 2012 Share Posted February 22, 2012 The unregistered players rumour flying about for a while. Until the beaks take action I won't believe it. It would basically mean that every game rangers have played this season being an automatic 3-0 win and leave them on -29 points or something. Which would save hibs or Dunfermline. Like I said, if the people that rule the game don't do jack shit then they'll get away with it. Although it has hit clubs already this season, Spartans being one of them. So they can't make up a new rule for the once mighty gers to get away with this if true 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
T_S_A_R Posted February 22, 2012 Share Posted February 22, 2012 But it IS illegal to use a company's shares or funds to finance buying that company. Punishable by up to two years in prison. I said many pages ago that Whyte being arrested could be on the cards. murray's shareholding cost £1 to buy. i don't think the ticketus money was required for that. paying off lloyds and refinancing with ticketus is a seperate matter. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
printer Posted February 22, 2012 Share Posted February 22, 2012 (edited) 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. Agreed. I'm also sure it is right he has given personal guarantees for much if not all the loan. 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 Definitely. Aren't the calls for fraud charges more to do with the missing money which never made it into rangers' accounts rather than the manner in which he funded the takeover? I don't really know or care to be honest, just having quite a bit of a laugh following this saga. It will have gone through the books as a loan from the parent company, passing the funds which it had received from Ticketus. It may or may not have been actual cash, although I suspect it was as that would stand up better to scrutiny. In any case the funds were used to settle Rangers indebtedness to LBG. As I have posted above, I believe that a lot of the original loan will have already been repaid from Rangers to the parent company and on to Ticketus from Rangers cashflow (Jelavic's money, the £9m owed to HMRC, other stuff). I would be surprised if the current outstanding amount is over £10m. Double whammy from Whyte: reduces his indebtedness to Ticketus; pushes the company into admin. Edited February 22, 2012 by printer 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colin M Posted February 22, 2012 Share Posted February 22, 2012 That was posted a couple of pages back - allegedly the players were contracted to the holding company. Unless this is another new scam that's been dug up. This is a rumour doing the rounds, I think pertaining to the new contracts for players in the summer. I don't think there has yet been any real evidence behind it - may just have stemmed from the Ticketus confusion (ie money going to Whyte's company The Rangers FC Group Limited as opposed to The Rangers Football Club PLC) so people putting 2 and 2 together and getting 49 million. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
forkboy Posted February 22, 2012 Share Posted February 22, 2012 Not bothered if Rangers live or die, I just need to see that capitalism doesn't get a bad rap You're about 200 years too late for that one. 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.