BlueThunder 8,454 Posted March 9, 2012 Share Posted March 9, 2012 THE infamous deal that Craig Whyte did to sell off vast numbers of seasons tickets for the next three seasons is believed to be close to collapse.Whyte lied for months about the fact that he used the £20m plus VAT that he received from Ticketus to pay off Lloyds Banking Group and thereby assume ownership of Rangers. He was exposed some weeks back. Now, it would appear, that the deal is about to unravel in the coming weeks.Sources close to the affair say that, although it is still subject to a court process, they are confident that, in a week or possibly two, it will be revealed that Ticketus no longer have a claim on up to a 100,000 season tickets. It is also believed that the administrators, Duff and Phelps, are hugely confident that deal that incensed the Rangers fans can be undone.Elsewhere, the scramble for missing money continues apace in this Rangers story. When Whyte took over the club, his lawyers, Collyer Bristow, gave Sir David Murray and the independent board headed by then chairman Alastair Johnston, guaranteed undertakings that Whyte had lodged £9m in their accounts as proof of funds. In January of this year, Collyer Bristow, through company partner and Ibrox secretary, Gary Withey, reinforced the undertaking of £9m. Withey has sinced moved on from both the law firm and the football club. There is a dispute now about whether the £9m ever existed. If it did, it certainly does not exist now.The administrators at Rangers are intending to fight Collyer Bristow for these millions. Yesterday, Duff and Phelps managed to arrest £3.6m from the London law firm, £3.6m being the extent of Whyte’s supposed £9m commitment. Rangers have competition as they chase the £3.6m, however. The money will be the subject of a four-day trial beginning at the end of the month and it’s not just Rangers who are laying a claim to it.Some of the club’s other creditors are looking for a piece of it, including two firms linked to Whyte himself, Merchant Turnaround and Jerome Group Pension Fund.“We intend to go for as much of the £3.6m as we possibly can,” said Paul Clark, co-administrator at Rangers.“It’s going to be too late to save the cuts to the players salaries, but it will mean that there’s more in it for the creditors.”Whatever portion of the £3.6m goes Rangers way it will merely be shunted into the creditors pot in order to try to exit administration as quickly as possible, but that’s another issue. What has incensed the club is that, over a period of a year, they were given repeated promises that the £9m was sitting in Whyte’s lawyers account and it appears it was not.Solicitor firms are not supposed to give undertakings unless they are holding the cash, rather than some of the cash or a promise of the balance. Whatever sum Rangers end up with from the £3.6m, their administrators intend to subtract it from the £9m and then vigorously pursue Collyer Bristow for the balance. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Polo 1,435 Posted March 9, 2012 Share Posted March 9, 2012 Last bit's a bit of a red herring IMO. There's no way CB would've given an undertaking to pay money and then not followed through. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlueThunder 8,454 Posted March 9, 2012 Author Share Posted March 9, 2012 Sorry, I should have put the first paragraph or so in bold as that is what I was trying to highlight. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Polo 1,435 Posted March 9, 2012 Share Posted March 9, 2012 Great news though Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlueThunder 8,454 Posted March 9, 2012 Author Share Posted March 9, 2012 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shuggy 1,308 Posted March 9, 2012 Share Posted March 9, 2012 I assume the SFA's "not fit and proper person" decision on Whyte would make any activity such as selling to Ticketus null and void?So if Ticketus are left to chase Whyte for the money, what about the £18M of it that Whyte used to pay to Lloyds? Can he come back thru the courts and claim it off Rangers?Confusing.shuggy Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sobatai 70 Posted March 9, 2012 Share Posted March 9, 2012 I assume the SFA's "not fit and proper person" decision on Whyte would make any activity such as selling to Ticketus null and void?So if Ticketus are left to chase Whyte for the money, what about the £18M of it that Whyte used to pay to Lloyds? Can he come back thru the courts and claim it off Rangers?Confusing.shuggyHe can try, but I doubt he would be successful. It looks like Whyte has maneuvered himself up a creek without a paddle. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Creampuff 22,628 Posted March 9, 2012 Share Posted March 9, 2012 Lloyds don't give a fuck where the money came from.They have the Ticketus cash and as far as they're concerned they have no further business with us. Whyte's the Ticketus deal is declared void - Whyte needs to give Tocketus £24m. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ogbg 20 Posted March 9, 2012 Share Posted March 9, 2012 From BBC:An update from our reporter Jonathan Sutherland: "BBC Scotland has learned Ticketus is confident of winning any case relating to the arrangement which saw the company advance money to Rangers in exchange for proceeds from three years' worth of season ticket sales. The firm has been taking legal advice. The Rangers administrator Duff & Phelps yesterday emerged from the High Court with a trial date set as they seek to release £3.6m from an account they believe belongs to Rangers. However this is being contested by Ticketus, amongst others." Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Hubbard 280 Posted March 9, 2012 Share Posted March 9, 2012 Last bit's a bit of a red herring IMO. There's no way CB would've given an undertaking to pay money and then not followed through.Withey acting for C B might have though............that might be why he's no longer with them Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sobatai 70 Posted March 9, 2012 Share Posted March 9, 2012 From BBC:But, and this could be crucial, have they been taking Scottish legal advice? Rangers season tickets are covered by Scots law and that can vary significantly from English law. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ogbg 20 Posted March 9, 2012 Share Posted March 9, 2012 But, and this could be crucial, have they been taking Scottish legal advice? Rangers season tickets are covered by Scots law and that can vary significantly from English law.Fair point. I don't know.If I was one of their shareholders I'd be pretty angry if they weren't! Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shuggy 1,308 Posted March 9, 2012 Share Posted March 9, 2012 He can try, but I doubt he would be successful. It looks like Whyte has maneuvered himself up a creek without a paddle.Looks like it, he was technically correct when he said he was on the hook personally for the Ticketus deal, but what he meant IMO was he would pay them back along with the £6M or so his lawyers are holding onto and then turn round and claim back the £18M rangers owe him.However, that all depends on him retaining sole secure creditor status which does not look so rock solid now. He may end up just joining the quehe in a CVA settlement and lose millions?Shuggy Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sobatai 70 Posted March 9, 2012 Share Posted March 9, 2012 I'd be surprised if he even ends up being part of the CVA, to be honest. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kaiser Wull 203 Posted March 9, 2012 Share Posted March 9, 2012 But, and this could be crucial, have they been taking Scottish legal advice? Rangers season tickets are covered by Scots law and that can vary significantly from English law.The contract between the club and the season ticket holders will be covered by Scots law, but I suspect that the contract with Ticketus will be governed by English law. Most commercial contracts with English-based companies will stipulate that English law will apply. They may also provide that the parties to the contract submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the English courts. English contract, company and mercantile law is in most important respects exactly the same as in Scotland. I expect that the Administrators will have taken proper legal advice to make sure they know exactly what the law is on all of the relevant points. Let's hope so, anyway! Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smile 26,622 Posted March 9, 2012 Share Posted March 9, 2012 Wrong Thread 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.