Mikhailichenko 90 Posted March 7, 2012 Share Posted March 7, 2012 Just heard on SSN that there is a hearing tomorrow to decide the fate of the money that was taken from Whytes lawyers. Not usually the best with news on us but they went into great detail about it. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
caseyjones 3,009 Posted March 7, 2012 Share Posted March 7, 2012 Didn't the administrators already state that this cash wouldn't have any bearing on our current situation? Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
JRodgA2k8 542 Posted March 7, 2012 Share Posted March 7, 2012 Didn'nt the administrators already state that this cash wouldn't have any bearing on our current situation?It's funny because when they say there is a £4.5million shortfall to the end of the season you would think this £3.6million would help the current situation...Apparently not the in the weird and woeful world of Rangers in Administration Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ogbg 20 Posted March 7, 2012 Share Posted March 7, 2012 Didn't the administrators already state that this cash wouldn't have any bearing on our current situation?I heard that too but I think it was on here. Maybe it's earmarked for HMRC. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mikhailichenko 90 Posted March 7, 2012 Author Share Posted March 7, 2012 Didn'nt the administrators already state that this cash wouldn't have any bearing on our current situation?There has been so much said I'm struggling to keep up but if it were to be released tomorrow I would imagine it would have a bearing on our situation. It's the uncertainty over every damn aspect of the situation that is doing my head in. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
dan_ger 1,454 Posted March 7, 2012 Share Posted March 7, 2012 Didn't the administrators already state that this cash wouldn't have any bearing on our current situation?Did they? An extra 3.6 million would surely make a huge difference to the running costs, considering there is only a couple of months left of the season and they need 1 million a month. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
JM1872 3,744 Posted March 7, 2012 Share Posted March 7, 2012 If, or when rather, we get this £3.6m you wonder what the admins plan to do with it... pay off a few debts maybe? If it isn't going to help our current situation then it's unlikely its going to add to our working capital figure it seems. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
caseyjones 3,009 Posted March 7, 2012 Share Posted March 7, 2012 I heard that too but I think it was on here. Maybe it's earmarked for HMRC.I'm positive that it was Whitehouse, but there has been that much to take in recently! Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ogbg 20 Posted March 7, 2012 Share Posted March 7, 2012 I'm positive that it was Whitehouse, but there has been that much to take in recently! Here it is, from the Herald:Duff & Phelps last night confirmed it had seized £3.6m from the client account held by solicitors Collyer Bristow, which was part of the £22.4m Ticketus money Craig Whyte used to buy Rangers. But Herald Sport can reveal that money, even if the High Court in London rules on March 8 that it belongs to Rangers, almost certainly will not be used to reduce the number of job losses. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
southcoastbear 1,639 Posted March 7, 2012 Share Posted March 7, 2012 Question is where did £3.6m come from. Is it part of ticketus deal. If so do we really want to bring it into rangers accounts which may make us liable for the lot.ogbg answers my point Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ogbg 20 Posted March 7, 2012 Share Posted March 7, 2012 Question is where did £3.6m come from. Is it part of ticketus deal. If so do we really want to bring it into rangers accounts which may make us liable for the lot.If, as they say, they own our tickets then we are already liable Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zappa 358 Posted March 7, 2012 Share Posted March 7, 2012 I think they (D&P) said that the timescales wouldn't coincide... ie we wouldn't get the money quickly enough. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thermopylae 15,287 Posted March 7, 2012 Share Posted March 7, 2012 It's funny because when they say there is a £4.5million shortfall to the end of the season you would think this £3.6million would help the current situation...Apparently not the in the weird and woeful world of Rangers in Administration It's a parallel universe isn't it Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mikhailichenko 90 Posted March 7, 2012 Author Share Posted March 7, 2012 If, as they say, they own our tickets then we are already liableOr we could only be liable for £3.6m. It's anyone's guess at the moment. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
caseyjones 3,009 Posted March 7, 2012 Share Posted March 7, 2012 Found what I was looking for, but the wording could be crucial considering when it was made.£3.6m seized from Craig Whyte's lawyers won't save Rangers jobsAdministrators say players will be made redundant regardless of High Court ruling as investigations into missing millions continue..By Jim Smith03 March 2012 15:45 GMTComment (1) ....299659 Rangers administrators believe that £3.6m seized from Craig Whyte's lawyers will not be returned to the club in time to prevent player redundancies.Administrators Duff and Phelps representative David Whitehouse told a press gathering at Ibrox on Saturday afternoon: "There are likely to be some job losses... we are very hopeful we can reach a consensual agreement which we can get delivered, probably on Monday."Asked if the £3.6m which was paid to the administrators' lawyers ahead of a hearing at the High Court in London on Thursday could save players' jobs, Mr Whitehouse said: "It is most unlikely that that cash will be released to the club in time to address this issue."The administrator also revealed that investigations into further funds missing from the club's accounts are continuing.Mr Whitehouse was asked whether or not the he could verify Craig Whyte's claim that "every penny is in the club, every penny has been accounted for. All that will be confirmed in due course". He replied: "We're not going to comment on his particular comments."What I can say is we continue to investigate monies which should have been brought in to the club."Discussions between administrators, the PFA and manager Ally McCoist are set to continue on Sunday in a bid to break the deadlock which has delayed a decision on how many staff members will lose their jobs as the club seeks to make savings of £1m a month.http://news.stv.tv/scotland/west-central/299659-36m-seized-from-craig-whytes-lawyers-wont-save-rangers-jobs/ Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mikhailichenko 90 Posted March 7, 2012 Author Share Posted March 7, 2012 It's a parallel universe isn't itIf only! Then we could apply some form of science or logic to it. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ogbg 20 Posted March 7, 2012 Share Posted March 7, 2012 Or we could only be liable for £3.6m. It's anyone's guess at the moment.There could be a legal challenge of course. I'm sure there will. But if it turns out we did indeed sell them the tickets and that sale is legally valid then they own the tickets. I don't see how it makes any difference whether we choose to use the money from the sale or not. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mikhailichenko 90 Posted March 7, 2012 Author Share Posted March 7, 2012 There could be a legal challenge of course. I'm sure there will. But if it turns out we did indeed sell them the tickets and that sale is legally valid then they own the tickets. I don't see how it makes any difference whether we choose to use the money from the sale or not. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mclovin9091 1,405 Posted March 7, 2012 Share Posted March 7, 2012 This £3.6 million would be nice because as said on another thread, the prize money for finishing 2nd is @ least 900K.Now that makes a nice round £4.5 million just what were looking for eh? Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
JM1872 3,744 Posted March 7, 2012 Share Posted March 7, 2012 There could be a legal challenge of course. I'm sure there will. But if it turns out we did indeed sell them the tickets and that sale is legally valid then they own the tickets. I don't see how it makes any difference whether we choose to use the money from the sale or not.I still wonder how it can be physically possibly in the business world, or any world, to see something you do not own at that time.It's like me buying something from you, clearing something up with people you owe as a slight thank you and then saying "oh by the way mate, I arranged the debt payments and what not on your weekly wage for the next 3 years so all your wages go to them, cheers for doing business." It just simply doesn't work nor make sense about how it can be legal. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ogbg 20 Posted March 7, 2012 Share Posted March 7, 2012 I still wonder how it can be physically possibly in the business world, or any world, to see something you do not own at that time.It's like me buying something from you, clearing something up with people you owe as a slight thank you and then saying "oh by the way mate, I arranged the debt payments and what not on your weekly wage for the next 3 years so all your wages go to them, cheers for doing business." It just simply doesn't work nor make sense about how it can be legal.He could have taken a loan from Ticketus, secured against himself, and agreed to just pay it back if he didn't buy the club. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mikhailichenko 90 Posted March 7, 2012 Author Share Posted March 7, 2012 He could have taken a loan from Ticketus, secured against himself, and agreed to just pay it back if he didn't buy the club.That is perfectly pheasable and most likely what happened but the big thing for me is that Murray surely would have to be notified of this at some point. Nobody has been able to clarify this. Then again it's not an everyday occurrence. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ogbg 20 Posted March 7, 2012 Share Posted March 7, 2012 That is perfectly pheasable and most likely what happened but the big thing for me is that Murray surely would have to be notified of this at some point. Nobody has been able to clarify this. Then again it's not an everyday occurrence.He claims he didn't know so hopefully that's a route that can be pursued Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mikhailichenko 90 Posted March 7, 2012 Author Share Posted March 7, 2012 He claims he didn't know so hopefully that's a route that can be pursuedIt might be perfectly ok for him not to have been notified it just seems very strange Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
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.