Desert Nomad Posted March 20, 2012 Share Posted March 20, 2012 Keith Jackson hinting on Talksport at a fourth bid being tabled, again from the USA, but with links to a certain Mr Whyte. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JeffStelling Posted March 20, 2012 Share Posted March 20, 2012 No news on the case to get the Ticketus £24m written off? Thougt that was happening yesterday? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pollymac Posted March 20, 2012 Share Posted March 20, 2012 re Ticketus deal. Renegers are wanting £40m to be written off/details changed. It is not £24m as being widely misreported. Ticketus paid Renegers £24.4m or thereabouts for a hefty wedge of future season tickets sales. With inflation rising, do you think that they did so out of purely altruistic purposes and want to take a hit (in real terms) on their money? Or do you think that they paid out £24.4m for a number of season tickets that will realise them a very healthy profit over three years? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colin M Posted March 20, 2012 Share Posted March 20, 2012 re Ticketus deal. Renegers are wanting £40m to be written off/details changed. It is not £24m as being widely misreported. Ticketus paid Renegers £24.4m or thereabouts for a hefty wedge of future season tickets sales. With inflation rising, do you think that they did so out of purely altruistic purposes and want to take a hit (in real terms) on their money? Or do you think that they paid out £24.4m for a number of season tickets that will realise them a very healthy profit over three years? At this stage it seems a reasonable suggestion though that Ticketus would walk away if they got their money back. But point taken, it was not a loan, after all. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pozbaird Posted March 20, 2012 Author Share Posted March 20, 2012 No news on the case to get the Ticketus £24m written off? Thougt that was happening yesterday? Evidence was presented yesterday, but the hearing was expected to last a couple of days at least. It's an issue I still can't get my head around. Administrators who are courting interest from the Blue Knights who include Ticketus, are simuletaneously taking that very same Ticketus to court. On one hand, Haudit and Daudit want them INTO Rangers as part-owner, while on the other hand, want their deal ripped up, which sees them OUT of Rangers, and they can piss off to join a long line of creditors. The only thing I'm reasonably sure of is that it stinks. This has to be one almighty conflict of interest from the dynamic administration duo. I still haven't seen a single Scottish media keyboard jockey probe this conflicting situation. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colin M Posted March 20, 2012 Share Posted March 20, 2012 Evidence was presented yesterday, but the hearing was expected to last a couple of days at least. It's an issue I still can't get my head around. Administrators who are courting interest from the Blue Knights who include Ticketus, are simuletaneously taking that very same Ticketus to court. On one hand, Haudit and Daudit want them INTO Rangers as part-owner, while on the other hand, want their deal ripped up, which sees them OUT of Rangers, and they can piss off to join a long line of creditors. The only thing I'm reasonably sure of is that it stinks. This has to be one almighty conflict of interest from the dynamic administration duo. I still haven't seen a single Scottish media keyboard jockey probe this conflicting situation. I think it is simply that they see a deal effectively cutting off a large chunk of the key income stream for 4 years as a bad thing for the business. I don't think they necessarily want them into the business, the assumption is that the Blue Knights are the preferred option. That may be true for the fans - but for the creditors? That's another story. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pollymac Posted March 20, 2012 Share Posted March 20, 2012 Evidence was presented yesterday, but the hearing was expected to last a couple of days at least. It's an issue I still can't get my head around. Administrators who are courting interest from the Blue Knights who include Ticketus, are simuletaneously taking that very same Ticketus to court. On one hand, Haudit and Daudit want them INTO Rangers as part-owner, while on the other hand, want their deal ripped up, which sees them OUT of Rangers, and they can piss off to join a long line of creditors. The only thing I'm reasonably sure of is that it stinks. This has to be one almighty conflict of interest from the dynamic administration duo. I still haven't seen a single Scottish media keyboard jockey probe this conflicting situation. I honestly don't think that's what the court case is about; it's more that they want the terms to be negotiable (or that the terms can be read as being repayable at the end of the term). With any contract, it's only as watertight as tested in a court, although precedent might suggest otherwise to them regarding Ticketus' deal, Renegers admin's appear hell-bent on altering the details, or at least stretching the minutiae as far as they can. Which is, after all, a part of what they are paid to do: get the best deal possible from existing contractual obligations. I had to laugh at suggestions by the Knights who say Ni's idea that they'd further tap Ticketus for £5m for working capital - isn't this what Chraig Whhyte done: sell future revenue to 'exist'? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MEADOWXI Posted March 20, 2012 Share Posted March 20, 2012 Alex Thomson tweets definitely building up C4 news tonight. The latest; @alextomo:#c4news EXCLUSIVE fmr Rangers director makes new claims on how RFC broke SFA rules on player eligibilty The Ticketus case in Edinburgh - the nrews this morning was saying direction from Judge by emnd of the week, So Paul Murray may not have everything sorted before the weekend game as he hoped LOL 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kildog Posted March 20, 2012 Share Posted March 20, 2012 Alex Thomson tweets definitely building up C4 news tonight. The latest; @alextomo:#c4news EXCLUSIVE fmr Rangers director makes new claims on how RFC broke SFA rules on player eligibilty The Ticketus case in Edinburgh - the nrews this morning was saying direction from Judge by emnd of the week, So Paul Murray may not have everything sorted before the weekend game as he hoped LOL Come on Alex, give us something juicy. This is what we all want to see 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Handsome_Devil Posted March 20, 2012 Share Posted March 20, 2012 Rangers are basically as fucked now as they were a month ago...the admin guys are (quite rightly) looking for miracle loopholes but even with a generous CVA the new owner(s) will need to flush away at least £30m just to get in the game. When that game is improving a terrible squad to compete with a superior Celtic side while making up a £1m shortfall each month with no realistic prospect of Champions League money for years, you must wonder what the point is. Furthermore, taking over Rangers on their knees is not the same as taking on Celtic 20 years ago - McCann knew television/European money would increase, a new stadium would pull in much more corpie money and the fans would flock back to a winning team. Rangers have already maxed out - to all obvious views anyway - stadium potential etc, the television money has already been there and, even worse, they have already mortgaged off revenue streams such as kit, catering etc. I can understand why D+P are continuing with the fight but tbh the sooner everyone involved in Rangers admits ripping it up and starting again is the way to go, even with a three year no Europe/lower league rebuilding period, the sooner both they and Scottish football can move forward. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colin M Posted March 20, 2012 Share Posted March 20, 2012 To be fair to D+P, they've already talked openly about liquidation as a possible "way forward" for Rangers. OK, they broadly changed the definition of liquidation for a business, but before courting these bidders it was on their agenda and will presumably remain there if it is in the interest of the creditors. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WhiteRoseKillie Posted March 20, 2012 Share Posted March 20, 2012 Your usual meaningless drivel...Point out what i said in the post that was inaccurate I feel bad about this, but here goes.... Matt Dickinson of the Times - possibly one of the most respected journalists working for definitely one of the most respected newspapers in the world, writes an article about a football match. He asks some questions of your club's representatives and reports the response he received. While you may not agree with his conclusions, are you trying to tell us that he LIED? Bearing in mind anything submitted for publication in that paper would be submitted to legal advisers for clearance, why would he put his position and livelihood at risk by libelling rangers? Do you really think he is part of a conspiracy, committed to destroying The Peepil? I am satisfied that his article is truthful and accurate. I, and many other Scots, have felt the baleful influence of sectarianism and bigotry throughout our lives, from discrimination to physical violence. Your club, and their green Sisters, not only allow bigotry to flourish, but actively promote the retention of antediluvian attitudes to maintain your "special" place as "part of Scotland's heritage". This latest stunt with the Union Flags (not Jacks, unless ibrox is a ship) is, apparently, encouraged by the club. That tells anyone who is interested - and your clubs' behaviour is being noticed outside Scotland - all they need to know about what they stand for. KTID 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 20, 2012 Share Posted March 20, 2012 Handsome Devil, that was an excellent and very comforting post. I've been worrying for the last wee while that Bares will somehow pull through this. Cyber pint for you: 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WhiteRoseKillie Posted March 20, 2012 Share Posted March 20, 2012 I think many are like myself and are not willing to hand over our hard earned cash to people who only a couple of weeks ago were backing Whyte all the way and telling the likes of Paul Murray to please go away quietly. Now it has all gone pear shaped they have turned on the Whyte Knight and are now blindly backing the Blue Knights as they have a cooler name...We have no idea what plans TBKs have and i am going to wait to see who gets control and what plans they have before investing. The thought of Mark Dingwall on the board of Rangers makes my blood run cold It's not about investing, though, is it? It's about keeping the leaking hulk of your club limping along till you can find a new sugar daddy. And 120k is about three days worth of that, according to Duff & Duffer. KTID 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WhiteRoseKillie Posted March 20, 2012 Share Posted March 20, 2012 Rangers are basically as fucked now as they were a month ago...the admin guys are (quite rightly) looking for miracle loopholes but even with a generous CVA the new owner(s) will need to flush away at least £30m just to get in the game. When that game is improving a terrible squad to compete with a superior Celtic side while making up a £1m shortfall each month with no realistic prospect of Champions League money for years, you must wonder what the point is. Furthermore, taking over Rangers on their knees is not the same as taking on Celtic 20 years ago - McCann knew television/European money would increase, a new stadium would pull in much more corpie money and the fans would flock back to a winning team. Rangers have already maxed out - to all obvious views anyway - stadium potential etc, the television money has already been there and, even worse, they have already mortgaged off revenue streams such as kit, catering etc. I can understand why D+P are continuing with the fight but tbh the sooner everyone involved in Rangers admits ripping it up and starting again is the way to go, even with a three year no Europe/lower league rebuilding period, the sooner both they and Scottish football can move forward. Greenie for you, young fella. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ivo den Bieman Posted March 20, 2012 Share Posted March 20, 2012 If even half the stuff Thomson is selectively tweeting today is true, it will be dynamite- not just for the hapless blue bigots, but for the SPL / SFA leadership. EXCLUSIVE fmr RFC director says RFC directors weren't interested in directing. SFA/SPL not interested in governing. EXCLUSIVE fmr RFC dir Hugh Adam say extra payments weren't notified to SFA/SPL So is it cheating? I ask. "It is. It is." Says fmr RFC director Hugh Adam 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Handsome_Devil Posted March 20, 2012 Share Posted March 20, 2012 Ta people. Channel four tonight will be interesting...but Adam has already made his point, will need to produce something really special if it's to further rock the boat. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vambo57 Posted March 20, 2012 Share Posted March 20, 2012 (edited) GREEAT! (Alex Thomson that is) Edited March 20, 2012 by Vambo57 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Broken Algorithms Posted March 20, 2012 Share Posted March 20, 2012 Quite funny that Alex Thomson is showing the SFA/SPL up more in a few weeks than the usual media suspects up here in decades. Apologists like Traynor and Young can say what they want about forum users like ourselves, but their time of relevance is coming to an end with the rise of the internet and social media. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Desert Nomad Posted March 20, 2012 Share Posted March 20, 2012 I feel bad about this, but here goes.... Matt Dickinson of the Times - possibly one of the most respected journalists working for definitely one of the most respected newspapers in the world, writes an article about a football match. He asks some questions of your club's representatives and reports the response he received. While you may not agree with his conclusions, are you trying to tell us that he LIED? Bearing in mind anything submitted for publication in that paper would be submitted to legal advisers for clearance, why would he put his position and livelihood at risk by libelling rangers? Do you really think he is part of a conspiracy, committed to destroying The Peepil? I am satisfied that his article is truthful and accurate. I, and many other Scots, have felt the baleful influence of sectarianism and bigotry throughout our lives, from discrimination to physical violence. Your club, and their green Sisters, not only allow bigotry to flourish, but actively promote the retention of antediluvian attitudes to maintain your "special" place as "part of Scotland's heritage". This latest stunt with the Union Flags (not Jacks, unless ibrox is a ship) is, apparently, encouraged by the club. That tells anyone who is interested - and your clubs' behaviour is being noticed outside Scotland - all they need to know about what they stand for. KTID It's a ship alright and it's sinking slowly but surely. The rats still on board won't last long on the scraps they are currently being fed. 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.