Baxter Parp Posted March 9, 2012 Share Posted March 9, 2012 This always seemed likely given that Whyte wasn't in position when he struck this deal with Ticketus. Which means he wasn't in a position to pay off Rangers bank debt and the bank will be forced to give that money back to Ticketus. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colin M Posted March 9, 2012 Share Posted March 9, 2012 (edited) I think Duff and Phelps are playing a blinder here so far. I think we can forget the indignant "but what about the creditors?" angle here - it's still their job to work towards a CVA unless it's clear that can't happen. A CVA is for the creditors. It took them long enough but they appear to be sorting out the accounts and now achieving cuts while retaining almost the entire playing squad. They also seem to have maneouvred Whyte out of the picture - although presumably he will challenge that. Again, D&P are trying to get the club sold - one key to that is getting Whyte out the picture - it's in their interest to try and invalidate any hold over the club that he has. While the SFA report yesterday will have some ramifications for the club I don't think they will be that major - and in ruling Whyte isn't "fit and proper" it has actually helped Rangers in that respect. The Ticketus deal potentially going away doesn't really have any bearing on their current position I would say - it's great news for them though in terms of getting income in the coming seasons (assuming they are still around of course). In that respect it would encourage any potential buyer if they know they have season ticket money coming into the club. Edited March 9, 2012 by Colin M 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drooper Posted March 9, 2012 Share Posted March 9, 2012 True, but that is £18m of debt to Lloyds that no longer needs serviced, or £24m owed to Ticketus which no longer needs serviced. Surely that money then becomes available to service other debts? No? As for the Ticketus deal - if Rangers aren't liable, who is? And once again, how do you sell something that doesn't belong to you? The fact that the liability is no longer there doesn't mean that the funds are. In terms of your last point, as I've said above, I think Ticketus have bungled big style (unless some very murky dealings have taken place). 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GreenockRover Posted March 9, 2012 Share Posted March 9, 2012 True, but that is £18m of debt to Lloyds that no longer needs serviced, or £24m owed to Ticketus which no longer needs serviced. Surely that money then becomes available to service other debts? No? As for the Ticketus deal - if Rangers aren't liable, who is? And once again, how do you sell something that doesn't belong to you? Want to buy the Armadillo ? P.M. me....... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drooper Posted March 9, 2012 Share Posted March 9, 2012 (edited) Which means he wasn't in a position to pay off Rangers bank debt and the bank will be forced to give that money back to Ticketus. Why would they? Ticketus were astonishly foolish in releasing the money it would seem. Their problem, not the bank's. ETA: it is possible that Ticketus were duped by Whyte into agreeing the deal, but they should have known better, TBH. I think they will probably try to recoup their money somehow, but I suspect they might be onto plumbs. Edited March 9, 2012 by Drooper 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
H_B Posted March 9, 2012 Share Posted March 9, 2012 A CVA is for the creditors. It's not though. A CVA is for the good of the company. In the same way that an IVA is to give legal protection for an individual against their creditors. It's a protective umbrella. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MacWatt Posted March 9, 2012 Share Posted March 9, 2012 (edited) With regards to the first point, I was always sceptical of the Ticketus claim that they would still have some rights in a liquidation situation. I am equally sceptical that they will have no rights if Rangers come out administration with a CVA. At the very least I imagine they would be part of the creditor 'pot'. If that is not the case Ticketus, a comapny who have a great deal of experience doing what they do, must have fucked up badly somewhere. I can't imagine that the could be regarded as complicit in what their £24m was used for. With regards to HMRC, they may accept a CVA as the lesser of two evils but i think it would have to be a decent percentage. as many others have said if other clubs in both Scotland and England see a weak response from HMRC it could open the floodgates. Whatever the SPL/SFA do there must some sanctions for issues such as non declaration of 'secondary' contracts. I think it may well be difficult to prove that there were secondary contracts without solid proof i.e. documentary evidence. I do think that the clubs have already decided that new financial fair play rules will be proposed/agreed at a General Meeting in April that affects all clubs going forward and that they will seek to penalise Rangers (through points deductions) for the next season or more. So out of all this may come the requirement for more financial prudence and I would hope reducing the OF share of the money and their ability to veto change through the voting system. Edited March 9, 2012 by MacWatt 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark Connolly Posted March 9, 2012 Share Posted March 9, 2012 Want to buy the Armadillo ? P.M. me....... Exactly. When this idea first appeared, I explained it to a mate using the analogy of inheriting your parents' house. You know you will get it when they die, but that doesn't mean you can sell it with them still in it! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
No8. Posted March 9, 2012 Share Posted March 9, 2012 Will there still be an opportunity for the 10 SPL clubs to change the SPL rules for a more equitable share of the money? We will see. All joking aside I never slept well at all last night and that was after quite a few Magners. I fully expected to wake this morning and not have a football team to support. I don't care what team you support i hope none of you EVER have to go through this. It has been absolute mental torture as the stories of financial mismanagement came out day after day. Thankfully(for Rangers) it looks like there is light at the end of the tunnel and we will come through this. I just hope those that finally get control of Rangers Football Club take time to consider what is best for Scottish Football as a whole. The Duopoly doesn't work and EVERYBODY has become bored and disillusioned. It would be criminal if we let this chance slide by without making serious changes to way the game is run in this country. 1 governing body would be a start. An Spl2 with TV money/Sponsorship more equally spread to ALL clubs. Even if the OF have to take a hit..so be it for the good of the rest. More TV and media coverage for clubs outside the big 2 would be a start as well. We have to be tough with the TV companies and give them strict guidelines that any 1 team can only be shown so many times. 2 up 2 down Return of a Reserve league with strict age limit rule..For example each team must have 6 U21s but still gives squad players match practice. I know the 'other' clubs want to split all gate money but that is just never going to happen no matter how much you want it and especially with the number of season ticket holders at the OF. I don't have all the answers but i just think if it is ever going to happen it has to be now. Rangers have a chance to show humility and build bridges with the 'other' 10 ... the divide helps nobody 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
H_B Posted March 9, 2012 Share Posted March 9, 2012 Rangers have a chance to show humility and build bridges with the 'other' 10 ... the divide helps nobody Rangers shouldn't be an SPL club after this season.... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
uni Posted March 9, 2012 Share Posted March 9, 2012 This is only until the end of the season and they have a tax case coming up they also owe a lot of money to other teams. Rangers are still in a sticky position but as they are dirty *** b*****ds they will pull through this. c***s and the role of the SFA and SPL has got to be questioned, hopefully the 10 teams unify with an ultimatum to the SPL. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pozbaird Posted March 9, 2012 Author Share Posted March 9, 2012 (edited) The biggest news today looks like being the Ticketus deal on the verge of collapse with Rangers Football Club not being liable for any of that money. Time will tell. Like everything else that has still to be fully played out. So, we are back at the stage where we all feel Rangers are another step down the line to wiping out all known debts, and in jig time will pop up totally debt-free, still with 140 years of history, still playing at Ibrox, still with a full first-team squad, still at Murray Park, still in the SPL. Next season, those taking 75% cuts today may well leave - but Rangers new owners (whoever they are), with all debts gone and a clean slate, will simply embark once more on a policy of out-spending all other SPL clubs for players probably on about 15k a week, and will always finish first or second at worst. Fair enough. Well done everyone concerned - Murray, Whyte, Haudit & Daudit, the SPL, SFA, the media, a subservient HMRC, UEFA, all supporters of other clubs who didn't bother organising a protest, and all non-OF chairmen who talked big, but done nothing and took it up the arse. Well done to everyone.... We'll see. Today's brighter news for Rangers is good news. Good news for Rangers in seemingly securing their short-term ability to get through this season with a strong squad, and possibly no, or minimal redundancies. Good news in giving everyone with Rangers interests at heart some valuable breathing space. Good news too for the integrity of this current season's SPL. This is only bad news if you are firmly in the camp that you hate Rangers so much that anything less than a constant stream of bad news leading to a quick death for them is unacceptable. I can understand that view, but I don't happen to share it. I hate them as much as anyone, but my view has always been that Rangers problems are of Rangers own making - so they should face them head on, and no-one should break or bend the rules, simply because 'they are Rangers'. So far, so good. From where I'm sitting - Rangers lost two staff members, two Rangers players walked, other Rangers players are now taking cuts to keep them going. In my book, this is Rangers dealing with their own problems. Fair do's. Keep it going. We could argue all day that this is a sign that the first two paragraphs of this post will come to pass. With Rangers refusing to roll over and die within three weeks of entering administration, it is a sure sign that they will end up suffering no pain whatsoever. For that to happen, an awful lot of people in an awful lot of organisations need to be of the view that 'they are the people and the big house must stay open'. I'm not so sure it's going to be that easy. Very much still a watch and wait scenario. All eyes should be on the SPL, SFA, UEFA, HMRC..... Edited March 9, 2012 by pozbaird 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 they? Ticketus were astonishly foolish in releasing the money it would seem. Their problem, not the bank's. ETA: it is possible that Ticketus were duped by Whyte into agreeing the deal, but they should have known better, TBH. I think they will probably try to recoup their money somehow, but I suspect they might be onto plumbs. If you think Ticketus are going to go: "Oh well, there goes £24m down the Swanee." you're barmy. They'll either sue the bank for their money back or if the deal is null and void the bank will have to give the money back as the funds were the proceeds of a fraudulent act. Rangers aren't going to get £24m for nothing. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bradford-Rover Posted March 9, 2012 Share Posted March 9, 2012 If you think Ticketus are going to go: "Oh well, there goes £24m down the Swanee." you're barmy. They'll either sue the bank for their money back or if the deal is null and void the bank will have to give the money back as the funds were the proceeds of a fraudulent act. Rangers aren't going to get £24m for nothing. You really need to think this through here! The bank and ticketus have no deal so why would they waste their time going after them? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark Connolly Posted March 9, 2012 Share Posted March 9, 2012 I don't care what team you support i hope none of you EVER have to go through this. I asked the question yesterday - in all seriousness, what were Rangers fans doing about it? There were thousands backing them through the times when they were winning the titles and racking up the debt, but when it became an issue, the best ideas were "let's have an orange top" and "youse need us". The share issue was almost totally ignored, and was there a viable alternative to Whyte? And as for the protests at Ibrox, the less said, the better! As I mentioned, when Celtic were in the sh*t, their fans put hands in pockets. Dundee did the same, and I am certain that United fans and fans of other clubs would too. So why didn't Rangers fans do anything? Please bear (no pun etc) in mind that this is not a dig at you personally, but I would imagine you are in a stronger position to answer than I am! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drooper Posted March 9, 2012 Share Posted March 9, 2012 You really need to think this through here! The bank and ticketus have no deal so why would they waste their time going after them? Correct. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drooper Posted March 9, 2012 Share Posted March 9, 2012 If you think Ticketus are going to go: "Oh well, there goes £24m down the Swanee." you're barmy. They'll either sue the bank for their money back or if the deal is null and void the bank will have to give the money back as the funds were the proceeds of a fraudulent act. Rangers aren't going to get £24m for nothing. On what grounds would they sue the bank? Caveat emptor applies here I would imagine. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Busta Nut Posted March 9, 2012 Share Posted March 9, 2012 I feel Rangers are cheating the admin process 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WaffenThinMint Posted March 9, 2012 Share Posted March 9, 2012 All joking aside I never slept well at all last night and that was after quite a few Magners. I'm not surprised. That stuff makes you fart like a brass band. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GreenockRover Posted March 9, 2012 Share Posted March 9, 2012 I asked the question yesterday - in all seriousness, what were Rangers fans doing about it? There were thousands backing them through the times when they were winning the titles and racking up the debt, but when it became an issue, the best ideas were "let's have an orange top" and "youse need us". The share issue was almost totally ignored, and was there a viable alternative to Whyte? And as for the protests at Ibrox, the less said, the better! As I mentioned, when Celtic were in the sh*t, their fans put hands in pockets. Dundee did the same, and I am certain that United fans and fans of other clubs would too. So why didn't Rangers fans do anything? Please bear (no pun etc) in mind that this is not a dig at you personally, but I would imagine you are in a stronger position to answer than I am! I think you'll find that the recent clamp down on benefit fraud has a lot to do with it.... no spare cash to send to the "Big Hoose" 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.