Ticketus deal - near collapse

[LegendofCoop 17,447]

Where does this leave us re the Lloyds debt?

BBC were reporting this morning that the deal was now facing collapse (per discussions with Duff & Phelps). This on top of what Paul Clark said yesterday...

"From what I understand, there's very little benefit that's likely to be made available to Craig Whyte," he said. "There's no obvious signs, or information, or clarification we've seen that would suggest he's actually paid any personal money into Rangers Football Club and therefore I don't see at the moment that he has secured creditor status."

Now, if (as it seems likley) he put that ticketus money into one of his own business accounts and used it to clear off Rangers debt with Lloyds, does that not give him recourse to claim that money back from us.....or does he simply become liable for the debt from his own 'securities'??

Sorry if this is an easy question to answer, but I just can't follow all this financial stuff!!

Cheers

[j1mgg 3,766]

I would assume he paid of the lloyds debt and that was it, no guarantees or anything attached. Where the ticketus deal was done, the money was guaranteed against one of his companies, so if they dont get it back from us they will get it back from that company.

[gunslinger 270]

here's a question. if rangers simply refuse to pay ticketus won't they have to go after the person that secured it. ie whyte.

[LegendofCoop 17,447]

I get that part mate, and understood that Ticketus would seek the money back from Whyte. But what I'm getting at is, where does that leave Whyte. He's surely then going to come after us for the money that he paid to Lloyds? He's a slippery fucker, and I can't imagine he'd hand over £18m with no securities??

[GeneralCartmanLee 313]

I get that part mate, and understood that Ticketus would seek the money back from Whyte. But what I'm getting at is, where does that leave Whyte. He's surely then going to come after us for the money that he paid to Lloyds? He's a slippery fucker, and I can't imagine he'd hand over £18m with no securities??

He thought he was getting rangers for his eighteen million, as it stands he did. Whether it will remain that way is the question.

[Not4WalkingAway 0]

Got to a point I'm lost. One day liquidation, next it's not. What will tomorrow or today bring?

[gunslinger 270]

I get that part mate, and understood that Ticketus would seek the money back from Whyte. But what I'm getting at is, where does that leave Whyte. He's surely then going to come after us for the money that he paid to Lloyds? He's a slippery fucker, and I can't imagine he'd hand over £18m with no securities??

he said he would pay off lloyds but he didn't so good luck to him coming after us.

[LegendofCoop 17,447]

He thought he was getting rangers for his eighteen million, as it stands he did. Whether it will remain that way is the question.

he said he would pay off lloyds but he didn't so good luck to him coming after us.

I'm even more confused now. He owns Rangers, but that could soon be found not to be the case. If he didn't pay off Lloyds, who did??

If 'Rangers' paid off Lloyds with the Ticketus' money, then surely we are tied to that deal??

Thank fuck I'm not part of the Administration team!! *Thick as fuck Loyal*

[StublueKPL 524]

My heads that pickled with all this that I have started telling people I have degrees in law, accounting and business management all obtained via the university of rangersmedia

[Edmiston Drive 3,846]

here's a question. if rangers simply refuse to pay ticketus won't they have to go after the person that secured it. ie whyte.

Part B to that would they also not go for the person who signed off permission to do this , due to the fact, was this deal not done and dusted prior to the actual deal to buy the club being finalised.

[bluepeter 5,627]

Lloyds got their money, they're out of the equation. They couldn't give a shit where that money came from

[reddrock 107]

I get that part mate, and understood that Ticketus would seek the money back from Whyte. But what I'm getting at is, where does that leave Whyte. He's surely then going to come after us for the money that he paid to Lloyds? He's a slippery fucker, and I can't imagine he'd hand over £18m with no securities??

I dont think he has any recourse as if the Ticketus deal does collapse , its secured against one of his companies , also if the deal collapses he would surely be guilty of further fraud having sold/ mortgaged what he had no right to based on the commitments he had written in to the sale re funds available and what he would invest.

[Jimfanciesthedude 24,775]

here's a question. if rangers simply refuse to pay ticketus won't they have to go after the person that secured it. ie whyte.

maybe that was his idea. This other company goes bust also leaving ticketus with nothing.

[Wreckedroy 33]

I think it may hinge on the fact that part of the original deal to buy Rangers from SDM was that Whyte personally had to pay Lloyds but he didn't, Rangers did. That in itself may make his takeover null and void, therefore the Ticketus deal would also become null and void. Ticketus would then have to chase Whyte for their money. And good luck to them with that!

[mabawsa 888]

His Legal Eagle chappies and Gary Withey appear to be heavily involved. They vouch for Whyte and provide so called evidence of his financial status to Ticketus and SDM. GW becomes RFC Secretary and then allegedly does a runner. Monies not where they should be at the lawyers's account......sounds like the legal guys could be hit for a huge bill or be deemed fraudulent.....seems less likely to be a problem pointing at RFC but more at his lawyer friends.

[Wreckedroy 33]

His Legal Eagle chappies and Gary Withey appear to be heavily involved. They vouch for Whyte and provide so called evidence of his financial status to Ticketus and SDM. GW becomes RFC Secretary and then allegedly does a runner. Monies not where they should be at the lawyers's account......sounds like the legal guys could be hit for a huge bill or be deemed fraudulent.....seems less likely to be a problem pointing at RFC but more at his lawyer friends.

Gary Withey was last seen at the offices of Collyer Bristow on 24th February and is thought to have left the country. I wonder where he could be.....

[Tamb 126]

I'm not that good with accounts or stuff, but I'm really struggling with the concept around the Ticketus deal. We are now thinking that there is no deal between the club and Ticketus, but we are trying to get the remainder of the money from that deal paid into the clubs account. Can someone explain how we can be trying to prove a link that we are also trying to refute.

[debear 603]

Tom English is tweeting that next weeks big story will be the collapse of the Ticketus deal.

Take from that what you will.

[Phil 1,150]

I'm not that good with accounts or stuff, but I'm really struggling with the concept around the Ticketus deal. We are now thinking that there is no deal between the club and Ticketus, but we are trying to get the remainder of the money from that deal paid into the clubs account. Can someone explain how we can be trying to prove a link that we are also trying to refute.

The way I'm reading it mate is that no-one knows what this money was used for, or was supposed to be intended for.

That's why there's about out 5 claimants if I'm correct? So if the administrators are saying that there's money missing from the club we've every right to after it, same as ticketus do as I think they'll be saying their due this money back as they paid CW directly with the condition that he would own the club.

... I think fuck knows tbh, my heads fuckin frazzled with all of it.

[BlueThunder 8,454]

I'm not that good with accounts or stuff, but I'm really struggling with the concept around the Ticketus deal. We are now thinking that there is no deal between the club and Ticketus, but we are trying to get the remainder of the money from that deal paid into the clubs account. Can someone explain how we can be trying to prove a link that we are also trying to refute.

We aren't after the Ticketus money, we are after money that Whyte said he had for us. 9m I believe. There is only 3.6m there. It doesn't matter if it came from Ticketus or he stole it from our grannies.

[disgruntled_bear 157]

Lloyds got their money, they're out of the equation. They couldn't give a shit where that money came from

This.

Ticketus got screwed by Craig Whyte.

[broxieman 14]

He did the Ticketus deal BEFORE "buying" the Club - THEN he used the Ticketus funds to pay off Lloyds and I assume simultaneously bought the club. The sequence is the key. Because he did not have title to the Club assets i.e. season ticket money for example, at the time of the deal with Ticketus, he would have had to provide some sort of personal guarantee to Ticketus. I would find it astonishing if Ticketus provided the money without such guarantee, because they would not accept a "future contingent asset" i.e.the season ticket money. When Whyte "consummated" the deal he would have transferred "title" of the tickets to Ticketus. Done deal. Oops, not so fast. Whyte will be deemed to have acted "ultra vires" - not having the power to make such a deal, so that side of the deal, I believe, will be deemed null and void. Therefore Ticketus has two options - either (a) realise they have dodgy title to the season tickets and pursue the Club, or (b) trigger the guarantee from Whyte - which I would have to believe Ticketus clearly established that it was a solid guarantee. If they didn't do that, then their challenge against the Club based on dodgy title would be a long, long shot. So the upshot would be that Ticketus provided the cash in exchange, not for the season tickets, but the personal guarantee - i.e. IMHO, the Club is not party to the Ticketus deal. Clear huh..?

[Phil 1,150]

He did the Ticketus deal BEFORE "buying" the Club - THEN he used the Ticketus funds to pay off Lloyds and I assume simultaneously bought the club. The sequence is the key. Because he did not have title to the Club assets i.e. season ticket money for example, at the time of the deal with Ticketus, he would have had to provide some sort of personal guarantee to Ticketus. I would find it astonishing if Ticketus provided the money without such guarantee, because they would not accept a "future contingent asset" i.e.the season ticket money. When Whyte "consummated" the deal he would have transferred "title" of the tickets to Ticketus. Done deal. Oops, not so fast. Whyte will be deemed to have acted "ultra vires" - not having the power to make such a deal, so that side of the deal, I believe, will be deemed null and void. Therefore Ticketus has two options - either (a) realise they have dodgy title to the season tickets and pursue the Club, or (b) trigger the guarantee from Whyte - which I would have to believe Ticketus clearly established that it was a solid guarantee. If they didn't do that, then their challenge against the Club based on dodgy title would be a long, long shot. So the upshot would be that Ticketus provided the cash in exchange, not for the season tickets, but the personal guarantee - i.e. IMHO, the Club is not party to the Ticketus deal. Clear huh..?

Cheers for that it's exactly what I was trying to say except I couldn't unscramble it all in my head :lol

[jonbryce 63]

here's a question. if rangers simply refuse to pay ticketus won't they have to go after the person that secured it. ie whyte.

It isn't a case of Rangers not paying Ticketus. People will turn up at Ibrox with season tickets sold by Ticketus expecting to be let in to watch the match.

[Gillete 1,338]

GW has buggered off to Costa Rica