Bluedell
-
Posts
1,840 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Downloads
Posts posted by Bluedell
-
-
-
I fully accept that Ticketus are not one of Rangers' creditors but they do own a significant asset.
My understanding is that they are being treated as a creditor and on the administrators' creditors list.
Believe me, if there was any way this deal could be undone, Paul Murray would not be involving Ticketus in his bid. Giving them some shares in the club in return for ripping up the contract is the best way to solve the problem.If there was not a way it could be undone then why are Ticketus geting involved with the takeover? Why don't they just sit backand collect their cash? It's because they believe tha there is a serious risk and that's why they have been contacted numerous organisations in a panic over the past few weeks.
-
they have a watertight 80 page one.
It can't be that watertight if they are wanting to get into bed with the BKs.
-
Cheers Del.
Sorry to hear that such an arrangement could be legal. Is such an arrangement usual, or common?
Not usual or common as far as I'm aware.
-
Can they contract with a company who doesn't own what they are trying to buy...ie contract with Whyte for Rangers tickets before he bought Rangers?
Presumably a pre-contract would have been agreed and the cash was paid into the lawyers account. The actual contract will be dated post-takeover. Probably legal but Ticketus would probably have known what Whyte was up to and is unethical. Not the sort of company we would want owning us.
-
perhaps bludell. I have seen mention that their contract covers them in the event of liquidation so they may not care.
How can it cover them in liquidation? Do you mean that they would still have a contract with a newco? Impossible. They can't contract with a company that doesn't exist.
-
can I ask a question? well I'm going to ask one. if you can answer I would appreciate it.
what's the likelihood ticketus are creditors who will vote on the cva.
According to Mark Dingwall they are being treated as creditors by the administrators and I've no reason to doubt him, and therefore they would get to vote on the CVA. It would be clear enough when the list of creditors is produced anyway.
-
There are reporting on radio Scotland that the deal white struck with ticketus is illegal under Scottish law.
The agreement will be subject to English law. The location of the club is irrelevant to the terms of the contract.
-
spot on mate.
if and its still if ticketus are creditors. its safe to say they have 25% of the creditor pot.
that means no cva unless they agree.
if you try to remove them as creditors its years in court. all the time the clubs in administration.
or you can work with them.
Are we allowing ourselves to be blackmailed by them? Are they really willing to refuse a CVA which will see us going under and they get nothing? Don't work with them and call their bluff. They would have no option but to agree to a CVA to maximise their investors returns.
-
Sorry, I thought I had. Mr Harris was not aware of all the facts. Once properly explained, the auditor was happy to sign off the accounts and she attended our AGM. We also got legal advice in terms of breaching our rules and the advice we were given was that we hadn't. Both these people were independent of the Trust.
The fact that Mr Harris was prevented from raising it at the correct point in the AGM was wrong, whether there was any wrong doing or not, and the point that Boss raised in post 275 is very valid and has not been addressed to the best of my knowledge. It is not for the Board to decide that members would not have any questions in respect of the accounts on the issue.
-
There's a lot of misinformation in this thread.
Gersave was not administered by Direct Sharedeal. It was administered by the RST itself. The cash went into a RST bank account and no expenses were deducted from members' accounts. When the club received the cash from the first tranche the shares were allocated to RST in one lot based on the full amount of the share price. When members wished to withdraw their allocated shares then Direct Sharedeal would process the change in name, but there was never any cost passed back to the Gersave member. They received their full amount of shares.
Direct Sharedeal had their issues but they did not have access to Gersave cash.
-
your heroes put a quid in and stolen over 400k. p murrays not even had a cup of coffee we know about and sdm (cunt) put in 6 million then 50 million.
you may not like the murrays but let's not kid on they are like whyte.
Murray didn't put in £6m. That went to Marlborough. He did put in around £10m at the same time that King invested.
-
Lots of questions so little answers, perfect ingredients for an opinion based on facts.
It don't look good but I'll assume you know more than tom dick and harry
Lots of questions because you didn't make it clear what you were asking about. I'm still not sure but perhaps that you aren't either.
Did Whyte put in £18M to clear the debt as he said he would? No. Fact.
Did he use the club's future income to pay off the debt? Yes. Fact.
Is Whyte better off because he didn't use any of his own funds to clear the debt? Yes. Fact.
Are these enough facts for you?
-
Where is it? What will it/can it be used for? Who will benefit from it?
Where is what? Whyte's £18m? Does he have it? It certainly wasn't used to pay off the bank loan.
-
Before anything has become clear, THAT is somehow obvious?
Yes it is.
-
What people need to determine (Administrators primarily) is did he lie for personal gains or for the benefit of Rangers FC.
Given he has saved himself £18m by using our season ticket money, it's fairly obvious he has personally gained.
-
Is c eltic FC Ltd a subsidiary of c eltic PLC or vice versa?
C eltic FC is the parent company and owns c eltic FC Ltd, which is turn owns the company AKA Pacific Shelf 595 Ltd.
-
I've been keeping my powder dry with this one as I see it the same as yourself. until someone can prove otherwise it would appear that the original company is still in existence and is either operating as Paedophile FC or is its parent company. I would be delighted to be proved wrong.
The original company is C eltic plc.
What I can't figure out is why al the income and costs are going through C eltic F.C. Ltd and the players are owned by C eltic plc.
If anyone wants to have a go at them then I'd suggest they pick on C eltic F.C. Ltd, formed on 24th September 2001 Ltd as HMS (402) Ltd (perhaps some royalty reference in there).
-
There's a problem with this. C eltic Football and Athletic Company Limited (Pacific Sherlf 595) is not the football club. It's a wee crappy company that doesn't do much.
C eltic plc appears to own the ground and the players. The income from the games and players wages go through C eltic F.C. Ltd.
I'd suggest that RM gets rid of the whole Pacific Shelf 595 thing.
-
There's a problem with this. C eltic Football and Athletic Company Limited (Pacific Sherlf 595) is not the football club. It's a wee crappy company that doesn't do much.
C eltic plc appears to own the ground and the players. The income from the games and players wages go through C eltic F.C. Ltd.
I'd suggest that RM gets rid of the whole Pacific Shelf 595 thing.
-
Read my post immediately above:
It's not right, but it's not unusual. I'd rather we paid on time but I assume it was part of Whyte's tactics (rightly or wrongly) for putting pressure on HMRC to do a deal.
(In any event, companies often make offers to pay HMRC, hence HMRC's formal, and popular, "Time To Pay" scheme, for which there would be no need if what you stated was correct!)
Ah, so they were offering to pay it up over a period of time. Yes, that does happen but if you piss HMRC around then they are less likely to accept a subsequent offer to pay it up over some unspecified period.
-
Also the administrators advised that the £9m was VAT and PAYE accrued since May and theerfore it couldn't include the wee tax case, could it?
-
Half of the £9m is the wee tax case which is in dispute. The other half, Rangers offered to pay a week past on Friday and HMRC turned it down. Why did HMRC turn down £4.7m that they will now never receive? You decide.
Since when do companies start offering to pay PAYE AND VAT liabilities? They just pay it and there's nothing to stop Rangers from doing the same.
-
No probs, I think the inference is that the £150 million at 10 over effectively hands control to LBG a view with which I would concur.
The bank had a level of control before the shares were issued and still do. I doubt that the £150m gives them a significantly increased amount. It could be argued that it gives them less as the dividends that are due to be paid are not secured and are only payable out of profits, although the level of debt to LBG is still significant and it's that which gives them the bigger control IMO.
The RST and the £92k
in Jimmy Bell's Kitroom
Posted
This thread would have more credibility if the points being raised were from people genuinely concerned and not just shit-stirring for the advancement of their own agendas.