Thermopylae 15,286 Posted April 23, 2012 Share Posted April 23, 2012 As I said before, every company whyte has got his mits on he's had them liquidated and with each day passing by, it's looking more likely that's what he intends to do with usHe's like financial locust stipping everything bare that he comes in contact with ... thanks for selling our beloved club to him murray Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
iconicman 8 Posted April 23, 2012 Share Posted April 23, 2012 For a cva 75% of the creditors with combined debt need to agree, if we owe tickets 25m, Other debt would have to exceed 75m to make them irrelevant.True, but then Ticketus are not part of a CVA, not unless the administrators rip up the deal. The scenarios for Ticketus are1) Agree a deal with the new owner2) Take whatever they get from liquidationThey have no real say. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sobatai 70 Posted April 23, 2012 Share Posted April 23, 2012 Well they should be more careful about who they give money to in future then Quite right ... whoever okayed the Whyte deal on behalf of Ticketus shouldn't really still be in a job.But people saying that Whyte retains no hold on the club should it be liquidated need to remember the "floating charge" he holds over the club ... that's what really gives him the hold over Rangers. In liquidation he has first call on Ibrox and Murray Park. The only way to loosen the hold he has over Rangers is via litigation. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ray 105 Posted April 23, 2012 Author Share Posted April 23, 2012 Whyte's playing a dangerous game here. There is always the possibility that we go down the newco route and he becomes an irrelevance. He'd have no say in that and would end up personally on the hook for anything owed to Ticketus on top of what they get from the liquidation of oldco.If he doesn't play ball then that's the ultimate sanction - as unpalatable as it is to most.He despite stories to the contrary holds the floating charge through which ever safe haven he now has it residing in. He is far from an irrelevance in any scenario since he appears to be holding a royal flush. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guardian 4,281 Posted April 23, 2012 Share Posted April 23, 2012 kooks like whyte is indeed the problem TBK excuse #31All last week it was the admins holding them back, and the admins got all sorts of catty stick for it.Who will TBK be pointing at next, so we've got time to make up some good posts ?Show us the Money Mini !!! Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Polo 1,433 Posted April 23, 2012 Share Posted April 23, 2012 He despite stories to the contrary holds the floating charge through which ever safe haven he now has it residing in. He is far from an irrelevance in any scenario since he appears to be holding a royal flush.This floating charge red herring is the red herring to end all red herrings. It means nothing if he hasn't loaned any money to Rangers.Even if it wasn't a red herring, the administrators are legally entitled to sell the business and assets to a newco without the chargeholder's consent.Whyte is an irrelevance if we go down the newco route and that's a fact! That's the point I was making. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zulu 981 Posted April 23, 2012 Share Posted April 23, 2012 This whole saga is going to end in tears. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ray 105 Posted April 23, 2012 Author Share Posted April 23, 2012 This floating charge red herring is the red herring to end all red herrings. It means nothing if he hasn't loaned any money to Rangers.Even if it wasn't a red herring, the administrators are legally entitled to sell the business and assets to a newco without the chargeholder's consent.Whyte is an irrelevance if we go down the newco route and that's a fact! That's the point I was making.You believe that if you wish. Whyte owns the floating charge and 86.4% of the shares, ticketus underestimated him, you appear to be making the same mistake, unwise to say the least. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Polo 1,433 Posted April 23, 2012 Share Posted April 23, 2012 You believe that if you wish. Whyte owns the floating charge and 86.4% of the shares, ticketus underestimated him, you appear to be making the same mistake, unwise to say the least.How does the floating charge protect him in a newco situation? How could he prevent a sale of the business and assets to a newco? What would he get out of it?If you can answer that sensibly I'll be astonished. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
JCS 649 Posted April 23, 2012 Share Posted April 23, 2012 It is extremely disappointing - and very worrying - that we're still awaiting a firm commitment to a deal from Ticketus and that many Rangers fans still cling forlornly to the view (or should that be hope) that Craig Whyte is an irrelevance.Like it or not, Whyte is still the owner and the MAJOR SHAREHOLDER and Ticketus are THE major creditor if a deal cannot be finalised with the Blue Knights.I know that many Bears are opposed to the Blue Knights, but our options are extremely limited - we do not have a train load of suitors! We've got TBK's and Bill Miller and that's it. We either end up with one of them or we liquidate - SIMPLES.I have significant reservations about both bids and I don't profess to know for one moment how viable they are or what cash reservoir they have available, but the Blue Knights are, at least, home grown and if I have to make my choice of the two, it will be them.We are between a rock and a hard place; we simply don't have the luxuary of a leisurely choice - it is a HARD cloice; as hard a choice as we've ever faced in our long and illustrious history. But one thing is clear, either we make the choice or we go to the wall.If we go into liquidation we know not what will emerge or, indeed, if anything will emerge at all. Yes, we would all follow our team to the ends of the earth; whether it be the Blue Square Premier or the Scottish 3rd Division, but the fact is we may not even get that choice, because liquiation may be our demise.I'm keeping my fingers crossed that that the Blue Knights and Ticketus will seal 'the deal' or that Brian Kenndey will come riding to our rescue - a potential White Knight. If not, then it's TBK's proposal whether you and I like it or not! Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Turnberry18 3,204 Posted April 23, 2012 Share Posted April 23, 2012 kooks like whyte is indeed the problem This man is audacious if nothing else; however time will tell on him. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ray 105 Posted April 23, 2012 Author Share Posted April 23, 2012 How does the floating charge protect him in a newco situation? How could he prevent a sale of the business and assets to a newco? What would he get out of it?If you can answer that sensibly I'll be astonished.People just do not have legally held shares or assets and floating charge assets removed on the whim of anyone administrators included, is that sensible enough.PS. I should have added or because ticketus are incompetent also. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
iconicman 8 Posted April 23, 2012 Share Posted April 23, 2012 People just do not have legally held shares or assets and floating charge assets removed on the whim of anyone administrators included, is that sensible enough.Not really.Administration is to repay creditors by raising cash through a CVA, the cash can come from:1. Investment by the current shareholders (not going to happen)2. Sale of the business to a 3rd partyIf 2 doesn't happen (i.e. Whyte blocks it) then you proceed to,3. Liquidation.A liquidator will be appointed to sell off the assets (probably to a newco but without all the niceties that a CVA would bring) and then the mother of all legal wrangles will ensue.Liquidators have FAR reaching powers and believe me, Whyte would be wary of going down THAT route. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
iconicman 8 Posted April 23, 2012 Share Posted April 23, 2012 So in response, people are in the final stages of this poker game, bluffing, calling and raising to try and get the best deal possible.Whyte wants removal of the personal guaranteesTicketus wants the best deal for its investmentTBK want to pay as little as possibleAfter all of that, HMRC wants the most for the taxpayerThis has legs to run yet, my worry will be that when Whyte/Ticketus/Buyer finally stop dicking around with trying to secure their own best deal, HMRC will be so fed up they'll scupper the whole deal.Everyone needs to get on the same page and quickly. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
will_1974 204 Posted April 23, 2012 Share Posted April 23, 2012 True, but then Ticketus are not part of a CVA, not unless the administrators rip up the deal. The scenarios for Ticketus are1) Agree a deal with the new owner2) Take whatever they get from liquidationThey have no real say.Accidentally gave you a negative rep there. I'll Find another post to restore it. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
will_1974 204 Posted April 23, 2012 Share Posted April 23, 2012 Accidentally gave you a negative rep there. I'll Find another post to restore it.Sorted, I'll ignore your PM. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Polo 1,433 Posted April 23, 2012 Share Posted April 23, 2012 People just do not have legally held shares or assets and floating charge assets removed on the whim of anyone administrators included, is that sensible enough.No I don't think you understand the tiers of ownership and the difference between a CVA with a share sale and a business and assets / newco sale.His shares are completely irrelevant in an asset sale to a newco. The Rangers Football Club plc owns the business and assets. Craig Whyte owns the bulk of the shares in The Rangers Football Club plc. The administrators are controlling the business and assets of The Rangers Football Club plc at the moment. The owner of The Rangers Football Club plc (i.e. Whyte) does not and has no say in it.The administrators do not require the consent of floating chargeholders to dispose of a company's property. D&P don't need Craig Whyte's consent to sell The Rangers Football Club plc's business and assets. I suggest you have a read of paragraph 70 of Schedule B1 to the Insolvency Act 1986.The floating charge isn't removed. It stays in place to secure the proceeds of the sale against any amounts owed to the chargeholder (which will be 'none' in the case of Whyte). Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
iconicman 8 Posted April 23, 2012 Share Posted April 23, 2012 Sorted, I'll ignore your PM.I'll ignore it too and apologise here, you are a good lad after all Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sobatai 70 Posted April 23, 2012 Share Posted April 23, 2012 No I don't think you understand the tiers of ownership and the difference between a CVA with a share sale and a business and assets / newco sale.His shares are completely irrelevant in an asset sale to a newco. The Rangers Football Club plc owns the business and assets. Craig Whyte owns the bulk of the shares in The Rangers Football Club plc. The administrators are controlling the business and assets of The Rangers Football Club plc at the moment. The owner of The Rangers Football Club plc (i.e. Whyte) does not and has no say in it.The administrators do not require the consent of floating chargeholders to dispose of a company's property. D&P don't need Craig Whyte's consent to sell The Rangers Football Club plc's business and assets. I suggest you have a read of paragraph 70 of Schedule B1 to the Insolvency Act 1986.The floating charge isn't removed. It stays in place to secure the proceeds of the sale against any amounts owed to the chargeholder (which will be 'none' in the case of Whyte).However, failure to dispose of a company's assets for a fair price would surely leave the administrator open to claims and realistically none of the bidders for a NewCo Rangers are likely to be in a position to pay the market price for the more notable assets such as Ibrox and Murray Park. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
iconicman 8 Posted April 23, 2012 Share Posted April 23, 2012 However, failure to dispose of a company's assets for a fair price would surely leave the administrator open to claims and realistically none of the bidders for a NewCo Rangers are likely to be in a position to pay the market price for the more notable assets such as Ibrox and Murray Park.That's a whole other ballgame. Market value is only the price between a willing buyer and able seller agree at arms length.Market price for a listed building football stadium? Unless the listed status can be removed, it's not worth a whole lot really other than to another football team that want to buy it, can't see many of them lining up other than the newco?Murray Park is similar, I believe their are lottery conditions attaching to the development and also restrictions on use of the land.If you can buy the whole club + team for around £12m, I can't see liquidation is going to get anywhere near that, given all the other implication of liquidation. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Polo 1,433 Posted April 23, 2012 Share Posted April 23, 2012 However, failure to dispose of a company's assets for a fair price would surely leave the administrator open to claims and realistically none of the bidders for a NewCo Rangers are likely to be in a position to pay the market price for the more notable assets such as Ibrox and Murray Park.This would be an issue for the administrators, not Whyte.The market price would be whatever bidders are prepared to pay. How much would someone realisitically pay for Ibrox if it didn't come as part of the Rangers Football Club package? The administrators are surely more likely to get a better return for the assets by selling them as a package to the highest bidder. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Polo 1,433 Posted April 23, 2012 Share Posted April 23, 2012 That's a whole other ballgame. Market value is only the price between a willing buyer and able seller agree at arms length.Market price for a listed building football stadium? Unless the listed status can be removed, it's not worth a whole lot really other than to another football team that want to buy it, can't see many of them lining up other than the newco?Murray Park is similar, I believe their are lottery conditions attaching to the development and also restrictions on use of the land.If you can buy the whole club + team for around £12m, I can't see liquidation is going to get anywhere near that, given all the other implication of liquidation.You're stealing my thunder! Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sobatai 70 Posted April 23, 2012 Share Posted April 23, 2012 Market price for a listed building football stadium? Unless the listed status can be removed, it's not worth a whole lot really other than to another football team that want to buy it, can't see many of them lining up other than the newco?The stadium itself isn't listed, merely the facade of the Struth Stand ... for an example of what can be done have a look at Highbury Square. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
iconicman 8 Posted April 23, 2012 Share Posted April 23, 2012 The stadium itself isn't listed, merely the facade of the Struth Stand ... for an example of what can be done have a look at Highbury Square.True, still red brick solid facades are not exactly the height of luxury fashion at the moment Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ray 105 Posted April 23, 2012 Author Share Posted April 23, 2012 No I don't think you understand the tiers of ownership and the difference between a CVA with a share sale and a business and assets / newco sale.His shares are completely irrelevant in an asset sale to a newco. The Rangers Football Club plc owns the business and assets. Craig Whyte owns the bulk of the shares in The Rangers Football Club plc. The administrators are controlling the business and assets of The Rangers Football Club plc at the moment. The owner of The Rangers Football Club plc (i.e. Whyte) does not and has no say in it.The administrators do not require the consent of floating chargeholders to dispose of a company's property. D&P don't need Craig Whyte's consent to sell The Rangers Football Club plc's business and assets. I suggest you have a read of paragraph 70 of Schedule B1 to the Insolvency Act 1986.The floating charge isn't removed. It stays in place to secure the proceeds of the sale against any amounts owed to the chargeholder (which will be 'none' in the case of Whyte).You don't seem to grasp that Whyte is holding all the cards, but I believe you soon will. 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.