Jump to content

Ng's Sinaporeans deal with Ticketus - Blue Knights stepping aside


rangersxfc

Recommended Posts

In all fairness to Paul Murray, the deal he did with ticketus won't be bettered, unless someone tells them to go and fuck themselves and pay them through a cva.

Ticketus are now scrambling around, trying to get more money, probably because chasing Whyte for the £9 million he has stolen/attempted to steal will be fruitless.

I hope we never deal with this shower of bastards ever again.

it is a good deal true. but ticketus denying tbk have pulled out reeks of panic.

Link to post
Share on other sites

As in < or > than 40 mil?

It matters that he has money, but we don't know who he's in business with. It may be them who are providing cash as well.

Who knows? The plot thickens once again... well... thins out a bit as TBK step back... but thickens elsewhere... <cr>

I'm talking pish now :D

Greater than 40M apparently.

Mate, we're all talking pish until Wee Bill comes out and lets us know definitively what he has in store for us, SHOULD he succeed.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Listening to the reporter from Singapore on SSN:;

Bill NG has been a fan since 1972 when we lifted the cup :anguish:

He believes in Scottish football :anguish:

He thinks he can run one of the Worlds biggest club because he did well with a Singapore outfit :anguish:

He is valued at around £60 million with the £20 million bid being the only confrimed money he is putting in :anguish:

This just sounds like it is going to be a farce, would much rather have the American bid to be honest.

I regret that you apparently have no grasp of the business situation. What is the point of being negative about something you clearly know very little?

Link to post
Share on other sites

oh and given 20 million is all Singapore have to put in its a safe bet rangers are indeed paying the extra ng is promising ticketus.

why should a new owner pay ticketus out his own coffers?? its the clubs debt(although we acquired it in an underhand way).

if the contract is water tight and we need to pay it then theres fuck all we can do, apart from take 30mill worth a punches out on c whyte

Link to post
Share on other sites

why should a new owner pay ticketus out his own coffers?? its the clubs debt(although we acquired it in an underhand way).

if the contract is water tight and we need to pay it then theres fuck all we can do, apart from take 30mill worth a punches out on c whyte

I'm not sure ask one of the many many people who beat the blue knights up over it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

You hoped that the TBK bid was 'fatally poisoned' when it announced it's deal with Ticketus.

How do you square those two?

Lol - you're as bad as GS, hanging on my every word. Try a life, it can be quite refreshing.

I never used the word 'poisoned', but don't let facts get in the way. (tu)

At the time, Ticketus were stuffed - only TBK were keeping them in the game. If Mini had dropped them at the time it would have been better for us going forward. But he was more interested in what was best for himself, which included keeping Ticketus in the game. It means they are still hanging around, playing one bidder off against another. Mini could have buried them. :anguish:

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not sure ask one of the many many people who beat the blue knights up over it.

i actually thought tbk had a good deal with ticketus regaurding what we owe them.

the only thing i didnt like was that they were also going to get funding off ticketus aswell.

Link to post
Share on other sites

why should a new owner pay ticketus out his own coffers?? its the clubs debt(although we acquired it in an underhand way).

if the contract is water tight and we need to pay it then theres fuck all we can do, apart from take 30mill worth a punches out on c whyte

To get a CVA we need to get the approval of creditors and Ticketus are a creditor of RFC (apparently) and along with HMRC they are owed the bulk of the money. It would be interesting to know the exact position of the Ticketus debt, was it RFC that actually borrowed the money or another CW company? If we weren't in so much bother this could have been argued about for years in court, etc but we cannot afford such delays. Easier to reach an amicable agreement which allows us to go forward. Clearly Ticketus and SDM were both duped by CW by failing to check everything out beforehand.

TBK could step back in as could Brian Kennedy. The Bill Ng bid doesn't look bad to me but we all have such limited information. The same could be said for the Miller bid. I'm at a loss to know where all the negative posts for Miller originate as I've read just about every word printed regarding the RFC situation and have not seen one shred of evidence to suggest the Miller bid would be any worse for RFC than other bids. My own gut feeling (and that is all it is) would favour Kennedy.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Warpy, warpy....

I don't think anyone making a sound argument beat up TBK over simply taking money from Ticketus. It's that there entire bid and subsequent operating revenue is based around it. Having a go at Ng for paying their debt out AND fronting his own moneys is laughable. These conversations could go a lot smoother and be far more productive if facts weren't willingly misrepresented. (this wasn't directed at the poster above me, just a general observation)

re: Whyte and the Americans: Is his hatred of them not engulfed by his fear of mandatory hearings that would follow a liquidation event? Miller seems unconcerned at a CVA exit, so this could explain Whyte's objections.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Even Craig Whyte - yes that Craig Whyte - thinks the American bid is bad news for The Rangers.

Well if Craig Whyte says theyre dodgy then that means theyre probably the only ones worth trusting,,, honestly wouldnt put any value in anything that comes out of his mouth anymore :sherlock:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Lol - you're as bad as GS, hanging on my every word. Try a life, it can be quite refreshing.

I never used the word 'poisoned', but don't let facts get in the way. (tu)

At the time, Ticketus were stuffed - only TBK were keeping them in the game. If Mini had dropped them at the time it would have been better for us going forward. But he was more interested in what was best for himself, which included keeping Ticketus in the game. It means they are still hanging around, playing one bidder off against another. Mini could have buried them. :anguish:

I mean what I said, that I hope: "it is fatally poisoned and that there is a better bid out there".

(tu)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Lol at you, troll. Ah, so you remember my posts better than me - well done, you must be so proud. :craphead:

So did my explanation above satisfy you?

I don't think anything could satisfy him. I hear he masturbates with sandpaper. 10310.gif

Link to post
Share on other sites

buried them like d & p were supposed to have done or actually bury them.

You could argue that Mini-Murray cutting a deal with Ticketus undermined the administrators' efforts to bury Ticketus. It is my instinct that if time were no issue then both Whyte and Ticketus could be left pissing in the wind.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I've just checked back. I was actually quoting Casey - it was him that used the phrase "fatally poisoned" and I quoted it back to him.

Do you hope that it is fatally poisoned even if there isn't a better bid out there?

I should really change his name to CaseyAlexTomoJones. :craphead:

Link to post
Share on other sites

I've just checked back. I was actually quoting Casey - it was him that used the phrase "fatally poisoned" and I quoted it back to him.

I should really change his name to CaseyAlexTomoJones. :craphead:

Whoa... half-truths/pedantic nonsense... I NEVER!

If I talked in that many circles I'd be fucking gone from dehydration at this point.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Is there any supporting evidence that we have any contract directly with ticketus, or is any arrangement through a third party, if so is there any binding agreement that it is actually us who owe ticketus and not the third party.

Or is it the third party who are liable for any debt .

Link to post
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.   Restore formatting

  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.

  • Upcoming Events

    • 28 April 2024 11:30 Until 13:30
      0  
      St Mirren v Rangers
      The SMiSA Stadium
      Scottish Premiership
      Live on Sky Sports Main Event and Sky Sports Football
×
×
  • Create New...