Johnstone Burgh 1,658 Posted March 7, 2012 Share Posted March 7, 2012 Mmmmmm.........Gaz? And who might you be? Canny PM.Rhymes with mister tree Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wreckedroy 33 Posted March 7, 2012 Share Posted March 7, 2012 It'll depend on what the Ticketus arrangement is but my understanding is that he used £18m from Ticketus to pay off Lloyds. This was Rangers' money and not his.He has a floating charge over the company at the moment which will cover all sums due by Rangers to him (Wavertower). The question here is what sums do the company (Rangers) owe him (Wavetower)? He has never loaned Rangers any money as far as I'm aware. All he's done is provide guarantees to Ticketus that he'll step in if Rangers default on repayment. At the point of liquidation, Rangers will owe him nothing.The only scenario I can see him being owed money by Rangers would be if Ticketus called up the guarantee and he had to pay them back the £24m they loaned Rangers. At that point he'd have the right to recover the £24m from Rangers. Fuck knows how it'll pan out. The administrators have said today that the £24m hasn't been invested in Rangers, so Whyte still has it? Therefore we will owe him nothing hopefully? Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
thebooler 4,509 Posted March 7, 2012 Share Posted March 7, 2012 Rhymes with mister tree Aahhhhh. Righty O. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ogbg 20 Posted March 7, 2012 Share Posted March 7, 2012 It'll depend on what the Ticketus arrangement is but my understanding is that he used £18m from Ticketus to pay off Lloyds. This was Rangers' money and not his.He has a floating charge over the company at the moment which will cover all sums due by Rangers to him (Wavertower). The question here is what sums do the company (Rangers) owe him (Wavetower)? He has never loaned Rangers any money as far as I'm aware. All he's done is provide guarantees to Ticketus that he'll step in if Rangers default on repayment. At the point of liquidation, Rangers will owe him nothing.The only scenario I can see him being owed money by Rangers would be if Ticketus called up the guarantee and he had to pay them back the £24m they loaned Rangers. At that point he'd have the right to recover the £24m from Rangers. Fuck knows how it'll pan out. He didn't sell the tickets before he owned the club - he couldn't do that. He must have borrowed against his own assets before he bought the club, then sold the tickets afterwards and then used that money either to pay off Lloyd's directly or used the money to pay his debt back after paying Lloyd's with the money he borrowed. If he payed Lloyd's with the money he borrowed then he could argue that he is due that back by the terms of the shareholders' circular. However, we could then argue that he used the proceeds of the ticket sale to pay back his debt, which would go against one of the conditions of the circular.Ticketus didn't lend Rangers any money. They bought our tickets. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
MisterC 12,407 Posted March 7, 2012 Share Posted March 7, 2012 Rhymes with mister tree or Sister Sea Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
LegendofCoop 17,481 Posted March 7, 2012 Share Posted March 7, 2012 Tom English on Scotland Tonight a wee while ago. Basically saying what a lot of us have. There are many fringe players not likely to get a game with us.....why the hell were they not asked to leave/fired. 32 players in the first team squad...it's just ludicrous! Another thing I want answered.....Whyte effectively used OUR money to buy the club. How the hell can someone effectively come in off the street and say that they own the club? His shares should be null & void!And if Plod is watching, you CAN take this as a realistic threat....if the club goes to the wall and I see Whyte,.....I WILL do the cunt in!!! Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
A.T.G 10,773 Posted March 7, 2012 Share Posted March 7, 2012 Tom English on Scotland Tonight a wee while ago. Basically saying what a lot of us have. There are many fringe players not likely to get a game with us.....why the hell were they not asked to leave/fired. 32 players in the first team squad...it's just ludicrous! Another thing I want answered.....Whyte effectively used OUR money to buy the club. How the hell can someone effectively come in off the street and say that they own the club? His shares should be null & void!And if Plod is watching, you CAN take this as a realistic threat....if the club goes to the wall and I see Whyte,.....I WILL do the cunt in!!!Your a madman lol Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
LegendofCoop 17,481 Posted March 7, 2012 Share Posted March 7, 2012 Your a madman lolI don't care any more mate. Someone supposedly who is a Gers fan puts the death knell round the clubs future. I can't be doing with that!!! Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thermopylae 15,287 Posted March 7, 2012 Share Posted March 7, 2012 Tom English on Scotland Tonight a wee while ago. Basically saying what a lot of us have. There are many fringe players not likely to get a game with us.....why the hell were they not asked to leave/fired. 32 players in the first team squad...it's just ludicrous! Another thing I want answered.....Whyte effectively used OUR money to buy the club. How the hell can someone effectively come in off the street and say that they own the club? His shares should be null & void!And if Plod is watching, you CAN take this as a realistic threat....if the club goes to the wall and I see Whyte,.....I WILL do the cunt in!!!That's the point we have to keep the club going until the tax verdict is in (whenever that is) so why didn't the admins start cutting the squad back from day 1?Whyte owns the club because murray signed it over to him it's as simple as that Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
southcoastbear 1,639 Posted March 7, 2012 Share Posted March 7, 2012 HMRC don't need our money, they let Vodafone off with £6 billion, they are using us to scare the shit out of the several English clubs who they have their eyes on, little pishy clubs, but with a much higher turnover of cash than us.It's high time time they found another play thing this shit is killing our club Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ogbg 20 Posted March 7, 2012 Share Posted March 7, 2012 That's the point we have to keep the club going until the tax verdict is in (whenever that is) so why didn't the admins start cutting the squad back from day 1?Because they don't want to lose most of our saleable assets if at all possible Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thermopylae 15,287 Posted March 7, 2012 Share Posted March 7, 2012 But we don't know how long it will be before the big tax case is concluded ... at this rate we may have to liquidate before we know what the verdict is Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlueThunder 8,454 Posted March 7, 2012 Share Posted March 7, 2012 Ticketus didn't lend Rangers any money. They bought our tickets.This point seems to be missed again and again. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ogbg 20 Posted March 7, 2012 Share Posted March 7, 2012 But we don't know how long it will be before the big tax case is concluded ... at this rate we may have to liquidate before we know what the verdict wasThat's why they're going to make cuts on Friday. They're just trying everything to avoid it. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Polo 1,435 Posted March 7, 2012 Share Posted March 7, 2012 He didn't sell the tickets before he owned the club - he couldn't do that. He must have borrowed against his own assets before he bought the club, then sold the tickets afterwards and then used that money either to pay off Lloyd's directly or used the money to pay his debt back after paying Lloyd's with the money he borrowed. If he payed Lloyd's with the money he borrowed then he could argue that he is due that back by the terms of the shareholders' circular. However, we could then argue that he used the proceeds of the ticket sale to pay back his debt, which would go against one of the conditions of the circular.Ticketus didn't lend Rangers any money. They bought our tickets.Na mate, I think Ticketus paid the money into some kind of escrow account (so as to "prove funds" to Murray) and it was only released once he completed the Rangers deal. He then immediately used it to pay off Lloyds. He must've agreed to sell Rangers' tickets before he owned the Club, with the release of the funds held in escrow being conditional on him acquiring ownership. No?I'm sure the administrators have confirmed that it was the Ticketus money which was used to pay Lloyds. So if Whyte didn't pay Lloyds on Rangers' behalf then Rangers' don't owe him anything.If, as you suggested, he used his own funds and then paid himself back the money owed then that'd mean that Rangers have already repaid what's owed so he'll get fuck all from a liquidation. Moreover, it may even be possible to unravel that repayment under insolvency legislation if there's been an unfair preference in terms of the repayment of creditors. E.g. if he repaid his debt before anyone else's and knew that the club was going to become insolvent then he'll be in trouble. But that's another story.PS - yeah, you're right on the lend / bought terminology. Been a long day! Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
LegendofCoop 17,481 Posted March 7, 2012 Share Posted March 7, 2012 But we don't know how long it will be before the big tax case is concluded ... at this rate we may have to liquidate before we know what the verdict isThe big tax case isn't really what's crippling us just now. We're shipping (no pun intended) money out fast, and no way of getting more in. We need to cut costs to survive. The big tax case only becomes an issue when we've been found guilty. ATM, HMRC are a creditor awaiting payment for the wee tax case. They'll only get their few pence in the pound. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
nachothelegend 1,932 Posted March 7, 2012 Share Posted March 7, 2012 I don't care any more mate. Someone supposedly who is a Gers fan puts the death knell round the clubs future. I can't be doing with that!!! Join the Que Mate.Its a long one. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ger50champ 300 Posted March 7, 2012 Share Posted March 7, 2012 The way I see it all panning out is:1. The club liquidates2. The only people who can buy the stadium and Murray Park are people who most likely want to run a football club as Ibrox can't easily be sold off for any other purpose as it's a listed building and MP isn't zoned for redevelopement - so there will be no other interested parties.3. Given that there would likely be only one party then, the properties could go for next to nothing.4. All the players are release from their contracts, some will re-sign some won't.5. For next to nothing, someone has bought and set up a new club that is entirely debt free even for the big tax case - that's against a company that will not then exist anymore.6. Whether that club enters at SPL or SFL 3 level isn't that important - in three years Rangers would be back in the SPL with zero debt - a totally unheard of position for any top team worldwideOn Craig Whyte1. Yes he paid only a pound2. He'll get feck all back from the sale of liquidated assets, secured creditor or not.3. Whatever company he has secured the ticketus loan from will get chased for the £27 million and probably go bust4. Craig Whyte will not go bust unless he has personally guaranteed the loan, rather than the company.5. I have no idea what has happened to the cash that has disappeared - if he personally has it, he would probably be entitled to keep it as he is a secured creditor - although he'll probably be unable to be a director of a company again for another 7 years.So, with a £1 investment, CW might see best part of £9MBut, in three years time at most, Rangers will be back in the SPL totally debt free.That has always been the plan I'd saythat may well be not far off the mark my friend Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
thebooler 4,509 Posted March 7, 2012 Share Posted March 7, 2012 That's the point we have to keep the club going until the tax verdict is in (whenever that is) so why didn't the admins start cutting the squad back from day 1?Whyte owns the club because murray signed it over to him it's as simple as thatBut did he? I'm not so sure. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
southcoastbear 1,639 Posted March 7, 2012 Share Posted March 7, 2012 Don't know if it is because people had time to calm down but nice to see some reasoned debate instead of hysterics.For arguments sake lets say that Whyte takeover ruled invalid due to ticketus deal etc. Does this then mean the club would return to SDM ownership at least in the short term. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
gunslinger 270 Posted March 7, 2012 Share Posted March 7, 2012 But did he? I'm not so sure.still flogging that dead horse. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
LegendofCoop 17,481 Posted March 7, 2012 Share Posted March 7, 2012 Don't know if it is because people had time to calm down but nice to see some reasoned debate instead of hysterics.For arguments sake lets say that Whyte takeover ruled invalid due to ticketus deal etc. Does this then mean the club would return to SDM ownership at least in the short term.No, because by the time I've finished with the cunts, they'll both be 6 feet under!!!!!!!! Sorry if that's hysterical gibberish! Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
thebooler 4,509 Posted March 7, 2012 Share Posted March 7, 2012 still flogging that dead horse.Aye. And I'll be flogging it until I see something which proves I should strangle the fuckin horse and forget it. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
southcoastbear 1,639 Posted March 7, 2012 Share Posted March 7, 2012 No, because by the time I've finished with the cunts, they'll both be 6 feet under!!!!!!!! Sorry if that's hysterical gibberish!nah you don't want to do that then it goes into probate which takes months Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Muiry12 7 Posted March 7, 2012 Share Posted March 7, 2012 that may well be not far off the mark my friendI agree! Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
.thumb.jpg.df745cc91b83abab0590131961ba2774.jpg)
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.