Polo 1,435 Posted March 20, 2012 Share Posted March 20, 2012 Anyone who qualifies can have a mortgage approved and funds put in a solicitor's account prior to buying a house. You never see the money before the deal goes through, but it's there to facilitate a quick and smooth transaction.Could a similar scenario not have been available to Whyte?That's what appears to have happened. Even though it's illegal in this instance. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gazbo27 15 Posted March 20, 2012 Share Posted March 20, 2012 they wont.Are you referring to Ticketus here ? Find it bit strange you sure this decision will go in favour of ticketus? You must think the administrators are just throwing good money after bad on this one? Administrators must work for the best deal for the creditors, they feel its worth pursuing the legality of the contract so I cant understand why you so pessimistic about this? Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
caseyjones 3,009 Posted March 20, 2012 Share Posted March 20, 2012 That's what appears to have happened. Even though it's illegal in this instance.What part is illegal? More than one?Setting up the Ticketus deal and placing the money with CB.Finalising the deal with Ticketus.Using the ST cash to pay back Lloyds. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edmiston Drive 3,846 Posted March 20, 2012 Share Posted March 20, 2012 As far as I was aware, Whyte got the ticketus money using his own assets as security against the loan. But...does that not mean that we technically haven't sold any season tickets to ticketus Anyone care to try and explain Think the problem should be , did he really get this loan signed off prior to him taking control of the club. Nothing illegal about this, but would have required a signature or two from someone with that power at the club. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
caseyjones 3,009 Posted March 20, 2012 Share Posted March 20, 2012 Are you referring to Ticketus here ? Find it bit strange you sure this decision will go in favour of ticketus? You must think the administrators are just throwing good money after bad on this one? Administrators must work for the best deal for the creditors, they feel its worth pursuing the legality of the contract so I cant understand why you so pessimistic about this?The administrators appear to be attempting to get the contract ajudged null and void in order to smooth the administration/sale process, as opposed to challenging the legality of the deal. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wreckedroy 33 Posted March 20, 2012 Share Posted March 20, 2012 Are you referring to Ticketus here ? Find it bit strange you sure this decision will go in favour of ticketus? You must think the administrators are just throwing good money after bad on this one? Administrators must work for the best deal for the creditors, they feel its worth pursuing the legality of the contract so I cant understand why you so pessimistic about this?It's all personal opinion masquerading as fact as far as I can see. The financial experts seem to think we have the better case, but some of the TBK fanboys think they know better. Only time will tell who is correct. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gazbo27 15 Posted March 20, 2012 Share Posted March 20, 2012 The administrators appear to be attempting to get the contract ajudged null and void in order to smooth the administration/sale process, as opposed to challenging the legality of the deal.Yeah I understand they are looking for Ticketus to be given creditors status and be included in any CVA, thus meaning they wil be limited to so many pence in the £. I can understand why they are arguing this. What gives Ticketus more rights than say JJB or the catering company whose contracts will be severed and they will be incl in the creditors list like all the others. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
caseyjones 3,009 Posted March 20, 2012 Share Posted March 20, 2012 Yeah I understand they are looking for Ticketus to be given creditors status and be included in any CVA, thus meaning they wil be limited to so many pence in the £. I can understand why they are arguing this. What gives Ticketus more rights than say JJB or the catering company whose contracts will be severed and they will be incl in the creditors list like all the others.Will the JJB and Azure contracts just be ripped up? They pay us. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
southcoastbear 1,639 Posted March 20, 2012 Share Posted March 20, 2012 I don't see how the case can be ruled in favour of ticketus otherwise it would allow this to be done to every scottish club I wonder if someone has already tried to do it agin with St. Mirren. Ticketus won't care long as they get their money at the end of the day I suspect.For me ticketus are a creditor of whyte not rangers, it is up to whyte to get money off lloyds then Lloyds off rangers you can't trade contracts off against each other if I remember rightly. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
caseyjones 3,009 Posted March 20, 2012 Share Posted March 20, 2012 It's all personal opinion masquerading as fact as far as I can see. The financial experts seem to think we have the better case, but some of the TBK fanboys think they know better. Only time will tell who is correct.You should put up links to all these expert opinions and shut them all up. The more the merrier. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
nelsonRFC82 305 Posted March 20, 2012 Share Posted March 20, 2012 As ever, nothing can be straight forward!However, if you follow the cash flow it appears to have gone something like this:Ticketus loan (or advanced) CW £24.4m.CW paid LBG £18m.£3.6m remains with Collyer Bristow (although now frozen)£2.8m is basically unaccounted for, as D&P have stated Gers did not receive anything?If Gers are liable to repay the £24.4m, then CW owes Gers £6.4m (£24.4m - £18m paid to LBG) and has no security over the club?If CW is liable to repay the £24.4m, then Gers owe CW £18m (for paying off LBG) but his secured status could still be challenged? Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bluesteel 218 Posted March 20, 2012 Share Posted March 20, 2012 People just want to be down on Brian Kennedy.A man with actual wealth who has been straight from the start.Don't get it myself..Can someone give me an idea why they are so sure Ticketus will get kicked out? I didn't see that they themselves did anything wrong.My understanding is that it is not an existing bidder,but one who has shown interest but,wont bid if ticketus is involved. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Polo 1,435 Posted March 20, 2012 Share Posted March 20, 2012 What part is illegal? More than one?Setting up the Ticketus deal and placing the money with CB.Finalising the deal with Ticketus.Using the ST cash to pay back Lloyds.Using Rangers' assets (i.e. season tickets) to fund the purchase of Rangers. So strictly speaking only the 3rd one above - although the first two were necessary to facilitate the 3rd one. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peachy 12 Posted March 20, 2012 Share Posted March 20, 2012 Are you referring to Ticketus here ? Find it bit strange you sure this decision will go in favour of ticketus? You must think the administrators are just throwing good money after bad on this one? Administrators must work for the best deal for the creditors, they feel its worth pursuing the legality of the contract so I cant understand why you so pessimistic about this?I cant see Ticketus winning this IF there was some side deal with CW before he had actual control( I think this is where it will get sticky for them).Who knows what bullshit CW fed Ticketus as well as the board putting this deal together.If it can be proved CW had NO AUTHORITY to bind Rangers FC then the rest of the deal falls apart.I think and hope D&P are focusing on the fact that you cant buy the club for 1 dollar,and borrow from club assets to get future funding from ticket sales.BTW this Paul Murray bid stinks of amateur hour quite frankly.Where are all these big money backers he has and we are borrowing 5M?? Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wreckedroy 33 Posted March 20, 2012 Share Posted March 20, 2012 I cant see Ticketus winning this IF there was some side deal with CW before he had actual control( I think this is where it will get sticky for them).Who knows what bullshit CW fed Ticketus as well as the board putting this deal together.If it can be proved CW had NO AUTHORITY to bind Rangers FC then the rest of the deal falls apart.I think and hope D&P are focusing on the fact that you cant buy the club for 1 dollar,and borrow from club assets to get future funding from ticket sales.BTW this Paul Murray bid stinks of amateur hour quite frankly.Where are all these big money backers he has and we are borrowing 5M??I think it may hinge on the timing of it all. CW may have reached provisional agreement with Ticketus on season tickets before he had control of Rangers, but signed the deal with them after he had his feet under the Chairmans desk. I'm pretty sure someone posted the dates but I don't have time atm to search for them. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Polo 1,435 Posted March 20, 2012 Share Posted March 20, 2012 I think it may hinge on the timing of it all. CW may have reached provisional agreement with Ticketus on season tickets before he had control of Rangers, but signed the deal with them after he had his feet under the Chairmans desk. I'm pretty sure someone posted the dates but I don't have time atm to search for them.That'll be what happened Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peachy 12 Posted March 20, 2012 Share Posted March 20, 2012 I think it may hinge on the timing of it all. CW may have reached provisional agreement with Ticketus on season tickets before he had control of Rangers, but signed the deal with them after he had his feet under the Chairmans desk. I'm pretty sure someone posted the dates but I don't have time atm to search for them.True I also think CW was hoping to fly all this under the radar but as it all stated to become in the spotlight and the financing scheme became more clear he tried to pull the plug as quick as possible to get his money out.I seriously cant see how this is not fraud and a deal like this can withstand a legal test.The fact it is so unclear and money is not accounted for nor is Wyhte helping should have the polis all over this.Not to mention Lawyers and accountants advising whyte who dissapear or thrown from a dark sedan when the admin come calling looking for details.I think this colier and bristow firm may have some questions being asked of them by investigators after all this. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
caseyjones 3,009 Posted March 20, 2012 Share Posted March 20, 2012 Using Rangers' assets (i.e. season tickets) to fund the purchase of Rangers. So strictly speaking only the 3rd one above - although the first two were necessary to facilitate the 3rd one.I'm not trying to be smart here, mate, but could Whyte claim that the purchase price of Rangers was to the value of £1, which he may have paid by himself, with the rest being merely conditions of the sale? Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Polo 1,435 Posted March 20, 2012 Share Posted March 20, 2012 I'm not trying to be smart here, mate, but could Whyte claim that the purchase price of Rangers was to the value of £1, which he may have paid by himself, with the rest being merely conditions of the sale?I assume that's what Whyte would try and argue but I can't see it being successful. It goes without saying that there will be a lot we don't know about what happened but, on the face of it, it seems pretty clear cut to me.A public company (i.e. Rangers) can’t give a person (i.e. Wavetower) financial assistance directly or indirectly for the purpose of the acquisition of its (Rangers’) shares. Wouldn’t want to overly bore anyone with the details but sections 677 and 678 of the Companies Act 2006 provide useful info. In particular section 678(3) provides:Where—(a)a person has acquired shares in a company, and(b)a liability has been incurred (by that or another person) for the purpose of the acquisition,it is not lawful for that company, or a company that is a subsidiary of that company, to give financial assistance directly or indirectly for the purpose of reducing or discharging the liability if, at the time the assistance is given, the company in which the shares were acquired is a public company.IMO this would cover off a situation where Wavetower incurred the liability to pay off Lloyds as part of the transaction and then used Rangers’ assets to do so. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
caseyjones 3,009 Posted March 20, 2012 Share Posted March 20, 2012 I assume that's what Whyte would try and argue but I can't see it being successful. It goes without saying that there will be a lot we don't know about what happened but, on the face of it, it seems pretty clear cut to me.A public company (i.e. Rangers) cant give a person (i.e. Wavetower) financial assistance directly or indirectly for the purpose of the acquisition of its (Rangers) shares. Wouldnt want to overly bore anyone with the details but sections 677 and 678 of the Companies Act 2006 provide useful info. In particular section 678(3) provides:IMO this would cover off a situation where Wavetower incurred the liability to pay off Lloyds as part of the transaction and then used Rangers assets to do so.Cheers, bud. As you say it will all depend on the wording of the contracts, dates etc. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Polo 1,435 Posted March 20, 2012 Share Posted March 20, 2012 Cheers, bud. As you say it will all depend on the wording of the contracts, dates etc.No probs.What I didn't mention is that there are certain circumstances where financial assistance is permitted if the 'net assets' of the target aren't reduced. I suppose there could be an argument that swapping the season ticket 'assets' for the Lloyds 'liability' would have a neutral effect on 'net assets' so it's probably not quite as clear cut as I made out....To top it all off, if there's been illegal financial assistance then it's possible that Whyte's shares could revert back to Minty Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
caseyjones 3,009 Posted March 20, 2012 Share Posted March 20, 2012 No probs.What I didn't mention is that there are certain circumstances where financial assistance is permitted if the 'net assets' of the target aren't reduced. I suppose there could be an argument that swapping the season ticket 'assets' for the Lloyds 'liability' would have a neutral effect on 'net assets' so it's probably not quite as clear cut as I made out....To top it all off, if there's been illegal financial assistance then it's possible that Whyte's shares could revert back to Minty A straightforward case then! That last line should get a few going tonto. It merits it's own thread - for mischief value alone! Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sobatai 70 Posted March 20, 2012 Share Posted March 20, 2012 Anyway, it has to be a Catholic bidder ... but I'd advise that pulling out is a poor form of contraceptive. 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.