Jump to content

Big Rangers Administration/Liquidation Thread - All chat here!


Recommended Posts

It's the old one about "How do you know when Craig Whyte's lying? You can see his lips move".

Mind, you I still think he's a loveable rogue. :P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We should judge Whyte by what he says to the administrators, and then what he does. Would be daft to take too seriously any statements being punted through the usual media channels.

Given what we know about Whyte's track record, he doesn't do walking away. Or at least not until it suits him (financially).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We should judge Whyte by what he says to the administrators, and then what he does. Would be daft to take too seriously any statements being punted through the usual media channels.

Given what we know about Whyte's track record, he doesn't do walking away. Or at least not until it suits him (financially).

Whyte will go once he has made shitloads of money from this. Not bad for a one pound investment.

Im amazed that there have been so many people still wondering what is going on here. You were told at the start how he will operate, he WILL get what he wants and he WILL walk away not giving a flying f**k and a little bit richer.

I think its excellent he is doing it to Rangers in the full glare of publicity, but this sort of thing goes on plenty and it goes on in businesses with a far bigger turnover than Rangers too. I hope he absolutely cleans the place out.:D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Ticketus deal is presumably to protect their investment as best they can. If the current entity can be kept alive, then their agreement will stand (including any "deal" they have done with the Blue Knights). If RFC are liquidated and it is the Blue Knights who take on the assets and start again, then throwing their hat in with that bid might ensure they get some return on their investment.

It still seems that HMRC will hold the key to deciding what happens. If they are willing to agree to a CVA then there is a clear way forward - if they are not then it's liquidation. What happens next is then open to debate - the administrators have already explicitly stated that they believe "the business" can be sold and continued. If it is that simple, you'd have to ask why would that not be the preferred option for all bidders. Behind the smokescreens, it might well be.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As ever a fascinating analysis from The Rangers Tax Case web site http://rangerstaxcase.wordpress.com/ (why was the site down yesterday?)

Add to that http://scotslawthoughts.wordpress.com/ where we have the bluster from the Blue Knights being challenged not to mention the coat trailing attempts by Duff and Puff.

Thank's for the update/links - two interesting articles.

After a couple of quiet weeks it may be time to stock up on popcorn again. :):):)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it is becoming clear that with CW blaming the previous owner and board for the current woes, it is highly unlikely that he will sell his shares to a group including a member of that administration. If the Blue Knights are to become the new owners, Paul Murray will have to remove himself from the scene or CW will not deal.

Let's not forget that a CVA is needed to avoid liquidation and that for the potential purchasers, either is acceptable.

Everyone seems to be getting over excited by the thought that CW may be told his purchase of the club was fraudulent but the fact is that he paid in full for David Murray's shares with hie own money.

Ticketus were not part of that. Once established as owner, he then took steps to reduce the monthly overheads of the business by paying off the bank debt. Tickets were part of that transaction. Big questions are possibly what happened to the other £6m and the Jelavic transfer fee?

The Blue Knights have been told to raise their bids. What happens if they don't?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it is becoming clear that with CW blaming the previous owner and board for the current woes, it is highly unlikely that he will sell his shares to a group including a member of that administration. If the Blue Knights are to become the new owners, Paul Murray will have to remove himself from the scene or CW will not deal.

Let's not forget that a CVA is needed to avoid liquidation and that for the potential purchasers, either is acceptable.

Everyone seems to be getting over excited by the thought that CW may be told his purchase of the club was fraudulent but the fact is that he paid in full for David Murray's shares with hie own money.

Ticketus were not part of that. Once established as owner, he then took steps to reduce the monthly overheads of the business by paying off the bank debt. Tickets were part of that transaction. Big questions are possibly what happened to the other £6m and the Jelavic transfer fee?

The Blue Knights have been told to raise their bids. What happens if they don't?

We-ell, that first part assumes that his interests lie in what is best for Rangers.

The second part only applies to Murray's shares, which were overpriced at a pound. The interesting question is not whether he bought the shares (he did, they're worthless) but whether he paid to discharge the security held by the Bank of Scotland and, if not, whether the security he claims to hold is worth anything. Remember securities are ancillary rights and only worth something if attached to a debt. If Whyte isn't due anything from Rangers then his security won't be upheld.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/football/spl/rangers/2012/04/03/rangers-in-crisis-blue-knights-takeover-would-slash-17m-off-ibrox-debt-as-paul-murray-strikes-deal-with-ticketus-86908-

Is it legal to offer one unsecured creditor a deal at the expense of other creditors? According to this Ticketus would get back 37p in the pound, albeit paid back over several years and interest free. If a CVA turned out anything like Dundee the rest of the creditors would get something like 6p in the pound. Hardly fair..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/football/spl/rangers/2012/04/03/rangers-in-crisis-blue-knights-takeover-would-slash-17m-off-ibrox-debt-as-paul-murray-strikes-deal-with-ticketus-86908-

Is it legal to offer one unsecured creditor a deal at the expense of other creditors? According to this Ticketus would get back 37p in the pound, albeit paid back over several years and interest free. If a CVA turned out anything like Dundee the rest of the creditors would get something like 6p in the pound. Hardly fair..

My understanding is that Ticketus are only a creditor if Rangers renege on the deal they have. There is nothing to say that they cannot renegotiate that deal?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My understanding is that Ticketus are only a creditor if Rangers renege on the deal they have. There is nothing to say that they cannot renegotiate that deal?

isn't that a CVA ? certainly sounds like one to me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...