The Circular

[Johnson 27]

What the document appears to imply is that Whyte has raised around £50million by taking out a mortgage on 100,000 season tickets over the next four years.

The company involved is almost certainly Ticketus LLP.

In my opinion, this is NOT good news.

[TheLawMan 6,240]

What the document appears to imply is that Whyte has raised around £50million by taking out a mortgage on 100,000 season tickets over the next four years.

The company involved is almost certainly Ticketus LLP.

In my opinion, this is NOT good news.

Except that the document is a discharge of security document and not a charge document.

[Johnson 27]

It's discharged the season tickets from the charge so they can be pledged elsewhere.

[ogbg 20]

What the document appears to say, and it was filed AFTER we were bought, is that Lloyds(formerly BOS) still have some sort of claim against Rangers FC.

So is the "chargee" the one who is owed? I had understood the form differently (i.e. that the chargee is the one who owes, and hence BOS is listed because that is the company bank account). Also, see when you say that it appears to show they still have some sort of claim, is that because of this part: "excluding the Release Assests" (i.e. the charge is lifted over all assets except the "Release Assets", which contain tickets, etc.)?

EDIT: Also, where is everyone getting the 4 year figure from? I don't see anything about 4 years on the document.

[TheLawMan 6,240]

It's discharged the season tickets from the charge so they can be pledged elsewhere.

It's discharged everything EXCEPT the season tickets.

[RFC55 110,540]

Find it strange as to why some on here seem so obsessed that Whyte is at it/bad for us. They seem to take great joy from this sort of shit aswell

[RFC55 110,540]

I see bluedell was in here at 1212 hopefully he posts in here soon enough. He knows his stuff and will post wether something is good or bad. He tends to stick to fact rather than agenda

[TheLawMan 6,240]

So is the "chargee" the one who is owed? I had understood the form differently (i.e. that the chargee is the one who owes, and hence BOS is listed because that is the company bank account). Also, see when you say that it appears to show they still have some sort of claim, is that because of this part: "excluding the Release Assests" (i.e. the charge is lifted over all assets except the "Release Assets", which contain tickets, etc.)?

EDIT: Also, where is everyone getting the 4 year figure from? I don't see anything about 4 years on the document.

The Chargee is who has the security, ie BOS. And yes according to that form, they have released part of the charge, the part being all company assets EXCEPT these season tickets.

As for the 4 years, they are listed on the document.

2011/12 - 23k books

2012/13 - 27k books

2013/14 - 27k books

2014/15 - 23k books

[ogbg 20]

The Chargee is who has the security, ie BOS. And yes according to that form, they have released part of the charge, the part being all company assets EXCEPT these season tickets.

As for the 4 years, they are listed on the document.

2011/12 - 23k books

2012/13 - 27k books

2013/14 - 27k books

2014/15 - 23k books

Ah yes, I see it now.

On a side note, is that signature in box 6 Phil Betts? If so, is he not one of our directors now, and is that box not for the one who is owed to sign?

[Frankie 505]

I see bluedell was in here at 1212 hopefully he posts in here soon enough. He knows his stuff and will post wether something is good or bad. He tends to stick to fact rather than agenda

BD posted this on Gersnet:

The bank has had a floating charge for a number of years, as detailed in the accounts "The Bank of Scotland plc has a floating charge and guarantees from each Group company on account of each other in respect of the loans and the overdraft."

Most of this has now been released, given that most of the debt with Lloyds has now been cleared as would be expected.

A portion of the floating charge (season ticket money) remains, presumably to cover working capital requirements if we still bank with them and/or to cover the lease that exists.

[RFC55 110,540]

BD posted this on Gersnet:

The bank has had a floating charge for a number of years, as detailed in the accounts "The Bank of Scotland plc has a floating charge and guarantees from each Group company on account of each other in respect of the loans and the overdraft."

Most of this has now been released, given that most of the debt with Lloyds has now been cleared as would be expected.

A portion of the floating charge (season ticket money) remains, presumably to cover working capital requirements if we still bank with them and/or to cover the lease that exists.

Right Frankie thanks mate.

So in very basic, non business understanding terms please?

does what Bluedell posted mean that nothing untoward is going on?

[GeneralCartmanLee 313]

What the document appears to imply is that Whyte has raised around £50million by taking out a mortgage on 100,000 season tickets over the next four years.

The company involved is almost certainly Ticketus LLP.

In my opinion, this is NOT good news.

where did you get the ticketus stuff from... ?

[gunslinger 270]

Cheers, mate.

as best as I can see the requirement comes from the ibc. i.e. aj and bain.

but that said whyte has agreed to it.

[spangles 7]

It says in the document that the season tickets are released assets, presumably there are unreleased assets.

[gunslinger 270]

would this be what darrell king was talking about when he said lloyds had ringfenced season ticket money.

[spangles 7]

as best as I can see the requirement comes from the ibc. i.e. aj and bain.

but that said whyte has agreed to it.

As a consequence of the consideration for the Acquisition being £1, and

following consultation with the Company and its financial adviser, Noble

Grossart Limited, the Panel has waived the obligation under Rule 9 for

Wavetower to make a general offer in cash to all shareholders. As a condition

of this dispensation, Wavetower is required to send to shareholders, no later

than 16 May 2011, a circular providing further details on Wavetower and further

disclosure in relation to the terms of the acquisition.

[gunslinger 270]

As a consequence of the consideration for the Acquisition being £1, and

following consultation with the Company and its financial adviser, Noble

Grossart Limited, the Panel has waived the obligation under Rule 9 for

Wavetower to make a general offer in cash to all shareholders. As a condition

of this dispensation, Wavetower is required to send to shareholders, no later

than 16 May 2011, a circular providing further details on Wavetower and further

disclosure in relation to the terms of the acquisition.

so its also a stock market requirment.

i suppose sanctions are unlikley.

[GeneralCartmanLee 313]

Right Frankie thanks mate.

So in very basic, non business understanding terms please?

does what Bluedell posted mean that nothing untoward is going on?

This is the problem.

The guys who are releasing this stuff onto the net are celtic fans obsessed with spreading bad news about the club, there track record of getting things right about our club is hilariously bad, but it is obviously causing doubts amongst the support .

I have always found bluedell to be a knowledgeable source of information on this stuff over a number of years but more importantly an objective source of information.

Guys posting cryptic bullshit based on the murmurings of celtic supporting bloggers should be ignored but surely you all know that by now….

Whyte and co should be clearing up this nonsense on the dates they agree, there is no real excuse for not doing so.

[GeneralCartmanLee 313]

would this be what darrell king was talking about when he said lloyds had ringfenced season ticket money.

Probably...as he had no understanding of what he was talking about either...

[gunslinger 270]

This is the problem.

The guys who are releasing this stuff onto the net are celtic fans obsessed with spreading bad news about the club, there track record of getting things right about our club is hilariously bad, but it is obviously causing doubts amongst the support .

I have always found bluedell to be a knowledgeable source of information on this stuff over a number of years but more importantly an objective source of information.

Guys posting cryptic bullshit based on the murmurings of celtic supporting bloggers should be ignored but surely you all know that by now….

Whyte and co should be clearing up this nonsense on the dates they agree, there is no real excuse for not doing so.

every deadline thats pushed back just gives strength to the doubters argument.

bludell is the only person worth listening to on theese things

[RFC55 110,540]

This is the problem.

The guys who are releasing this stuff onto the net are celtic fans obsessed with spreading bad news about the club, there track record of getting things right about our club is hilariously bad, but it is obviously causing doubts amongst the support .

I have always found bluedell to be a knowledgeable source of information on this stuff over a number of years but more importantly an objective source of information.

Guys posting cryptic bullshit based on the murmurings of celtic supporting bloggers should be ignored but surely you all know that by now….

Whyte and co should be clearing up this nonsense on the dates they agree, there is no real excuse for not doing so.

My feelings exaclty mate. Its even worse for people like me who dont understand business dealings, so i tend to look at what yourself, BD, Frankie and Boss are saying about it.

I gathered this shite was released by beggars but there is one poster on here who seems to be desperate for this to be true. Every thing he has ever posted has came from some fenian site.

I think we all have concerns but some who post on here are obsessed and every thread they start is a dig at CW!

[gunslinger 270]

Probably...as he had no understanding of what he was talking about either...

I am yet to see what he got wrong.

[Guardian 4,281]

I'm pretty certain no matter what Mr Whyte releases and what questions are answered, the usual suspects will just spin it with "aye but--------"

If he announced he was backing the team with £20m a year, out his own pocket and showed bank statements to prove he had it, they'd say he was just another Murray and we were doomed.

If he doesn't announce much they'll say he's hiding something, it doesn't add up, and something about pots and pissing.

Let's see how it pans out and feck the doomsayers and timposters.

I see us being Champions is still hurting.

[gunslinger 270]

so let me sum this up in laymans terms.

rangers used to have season book money used as collateral against our loans with lloyds.

some of that has been released most likley because the loan is repaid.

securities are still in place to cover overdrafts etc.

this is standard business practice.

yahoos are still desperate.

[Frankie 505]

Right Frankie thanks mate.

So in very basic, non business understanding terms please?

does what Bluedell posted mean that nothing untoward is going on?

I'd fancy that like most us BD is as unsure and non-committal as the rest of us on the subject.

Craig Whyte is the one than can supply the clarity and information that we need to move forward. I'm still awaiting him doing that but hope we'll have something to go on later today from PLUS.