TheTaxMan 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 When Haudit & Daudit get official approval to be administrators you will be docked another 10 points, first 10 can't be given back, you're insolvent - enter administration officialy, lose another 10. Will ye's make the top six? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheTaxMan Posted March 15, 2012 Share Posted March 15, 2012 That's Linfield confirmed, and a RST rep said on the radio yesterday that Hamburg are coming-over too. How long until Chelsea? Think of the poor players on their vastly reduced wages having to play all those extra games. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarreZ Posted March 15, 2012 Share Posted March 15, 2012 Surely 'ra peepol' will put enough money in the fighting fund to negate any fund raising games? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
~~~ Posted March 15, 2012 Share Posted March 15, 2012 Surely 'ra peepol' will put enough money in the fighting fund to negate any fund raising games? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Borys Posted March 15, 2012 Share Posted March 15, 2012 The administrators believe are seeking legal permission to breach thedeal for four years’ future season ticket sales. This action does notmean Duff and Phelps are questioning whether or not the agreement islegally binding, but the insolvency firm are seeking the court'sapproval to not pay Ticketus the money earned from season ticket salesuntil 2015.If the request for the breach is allowed, Ticketus would becomecreditors that the administrators would need to include in any companyvoluntary agreement needed to bring Rangers out of administration. I don't understand ... So, RFC "breaches" contract to Ticketus - thus the 24 million "advance" becomes "debt". Yet the ticket guys get their 24M back after 2015? Wouldn't this be getting their money twice? For one penny to the pound in then CVA and then again - this time from actual sale of tickets - after 2015? Borys 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tio Pepe Posted March 15, 2012 Share Posted March 15, 2012 That's Linfield confirmed, and a RST rep said on the radio yesterday that Hamburg are coming-over too. How long until Chelsea? The Chelsea 'relationship' is largely one way. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chico Posted March 15, 2012 Share Posted March 15, 2012 (edited) @clazbloomfield: Rangers have sold the stadium naming rights to married dating site AshleyMadison.. - I wonder if divorce rates in Glasgow go up? I hope this isn't a pisstake. Be fantastic if true! Edit to remove link Edited March 15, 2012 by chico 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarreZ Posted March 15, 2012 Share Posted March 15, 2012 @clazbloomfield: Rangers have sold the stadium naming rights to married dating site http://t.co/T5Q7ibhY - I wonder if divorce rates in Glasgow go up? I hope this isn't a pisstake. Be fantastic if true! Best that people dont click that link if they have suspicious partners who search your browsing history 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Homer Thompson Posted March 15, 2012 Share Posted March 15, 2012 I don't understand ... So, RFC "breaches" contract to Ticketus - thus the 24 million "advance" becomes "debt". Yet the ticket guys get their 24M back after 2015? Wouldn't this be getting their money twice? For one penny to the pound in then CVA and then again - this time from actual sale of tickets - after 2015? Borys My interpretation of the wording of that was just that the current agreement runs to 2015 ie Ticketus are due money on sales between now and 2015. I could be wrong, of course. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MEADOWXI Posted March 15, 2012 Share Posted March 15, 2012 (edited) My interpretation of the wording of that was just that the current agreement runs to 2015 ie Ticketus are due money on sales between now and 2015. I could be wrong, of course. What is does suggest is that if they not trying to get the agreement nilled as not legal, they are accepting that a debt (appreciate that it is for purchased future sales) is due, arguement is now whether it's now or can it be paid later. Edited March 15, 2012 by MEADOWXI 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fife Saint Posted March 15, 2012 Share Posted March 15, 2012 What a delightfully complex bucket of shite these fuds have managed to dip themselves in. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
craigkillie Posted March 15, 2012 Share Posted March 15, 2012 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. What if the club isn't actually in administration? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Homer Thompson Posted March 15, 2012 Share Posted March 15, 2012 What is does suggest is that if they not trying to get the agreement nilled as not legal, they are accepting that a debt (appreciate that it is for purchased future sales) is due, arguement is now whether it's now or can it be paid later. I thought they were trying to get the court to get them out of honouring the original deal, letting them add Ticketus to the list of creditors, rather than being due revenue from season ticket sales. I still think the 2015 is in reference to the length of the agreement, rather than a proposed future payment date. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MEADOWXI Posted March 15, 2012 Share Posted March 15, 2012 I thought they were trying to get the court to get them out of honouring the original deal, letting them add Ticketus to the list of creditors, rather than being due revenue from season ticket sales. I still think the 2015 is in reference to the length of the agreement, rather than a proposed future payment date. Yes but there had been suggestions that Rangers owed Ticketus zero, the agreement would be torn up and Ticketus would have to chase Whyte. What I was stating was this is an acknowledgement by Haudit & Daudit that the £24Mill Ticketus deal is Rangers problem and they will have to deal with somehow. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
archie guevara Posted March 15, 2012 Share Posted March 15, 2012 That's Linfield confirmed, and a RST rep said on the radio yesterday that Hamburg are coming-over too. How long until Chelsea? What's the link with Hamburg? Is it just "they're not St Pauli"? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Homer Thompson Posted March 15, 2012 Share Posted March 15, 2012 Yes but there had been suggestions that Rangers owed Ticketus zero, the agreement would be torn up and Ticketus would have to chase Whyte. What I was stating was this is an acknowledgement by Haudit & Daudit that the £24Mill Ticketus deal is Rangers problem and they will have to deal with somehow. Sorry. Yes, misunderstood the point you were making. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Borys Posted March 15, 2012 Share Posted March 15, 2012 @clazbloomfield: Rangers have sold the stadium naming rights to married dating site AshleyMadison.. - I wonder if divorce rates in Glasgow go up? I hope this isn't a pisstake. Be fantastic if true! Yay! Has MILFs! Borys 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EdTheDuck Posted March 15, 2012 Share Posted March 15, 2012 What's the link with Hamburg? Is it just "they're not St Pauli"? Probably, they're from Hamburg so the enemy of my enemy of my enemy etc 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MEADOWXI Posted March 15, 2012 Share Posted March 15, 2012 Sorry. Yes, misunderstood the point you were making. Answering 'Who is Keyser Soze?' after one watching of The Usual Suspects would be easier than follwing this storyline. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheTaxMan Posted March 15, 2012 Share Posted March 15, 2012 The same Michael Kelly who helped take Celtic to the brink, gets funnier and funnier. http://www.scotsman.com/news/michael-kelly-helping-rangers-would-be-sporting-thing-to-do-1-2173011 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.