gunslinger 270 Posted April 23, 2012 Share Posted April 23, 2012 would this stop them being sold to a newco without his permission? Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
North Rd 2,860 Posted April 23, 2012 Share Posted April 23, 2012 would this stop them being sold to a newco without his permission? Is it not in his Father's name now anyway ? Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
DarcheVinny 1,003 Posted April 23, 2012 Share Posted April 23, 2012 From what I could 'understand' from reading up on debenture documents, the floating charge protects Whyte's investment/loan - which he has convinced Companies House that he has invested or loaned the club £X. It looked to me like it ensured he would have to be paid off, before parting with his shares. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Polo 1,433 Posted April 23, 2012 Share Posted April 23, 2012 No. Tried explaining this to Ray earlier but he's a moron. The chargeholder will have priority on the proceeds of sale to the extent they're owed anything.http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1986/45/schedule/B1Charged property: floating charge70(1)The administrator of a company may dispose of or take action relating to property which is subject to a floating charge as if it were not subject to the charge.(2)Where property is disposed of in reliance on sub-paragraph (1) the holder of the floating charge shall have the same priority in respect of acquired property as he had in respect of the property disposed of.(3)In sub-paragraph (2) “acquired property” means property of the company which directly or indirectly represents the property disposed of. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
gunslinger 270 Posted April 23, 2012 Author Share Posted April 23, 2012 so if ticketus are indeed shafted and he's in to them for 24 million or whatever he's got first shot at the procceds of the sale? Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Polo 1,433 Posted April 23, 2012 Share Posted April 23, 2012 so if ticketus are indeed shafted and he's in to them for 24 million or whatever he's got first shot at the procceds of the sale?The proceeds of the sale to newco will comprise the creditor pot. Floating charge holders rank ahead of unsecured creditors, so technically Whyte ranks ahead of Ticketus and HMRC. But he'll only get what he's owed by The Rangers Football Club plc. If he hasn't loaned the company any money then he won't be owed anything and the creditor pot will be shared amongst the unsecured creditors.He'd get anything that was left after paying off creditors - but there won't be anything. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ray 105 Posted April 23, 2012 Share Posted April 23, 2012 Yes, but he is irrelevant according to some Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Polo 1,433 Posted April 23, 2012 Share Posted April 23, 2012 Yes, but he is irrelevant according to some what a troll! Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guardian 4,281 Posted April 23, 2012 Share Posted April 23, 2012 We can't owe Whyte and Ticketus the same money.Some seem to believe we do.I sense another TBK manipulation onslaught. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Polo 1,433 Posted April 23, 2012 Share Posted April 23, 2012 We can't owe Whyte and Ticketus the same money.Some seem to believe we do.I sense another TBK manipulation onslaught.And even if we owed Whyte money, he couldn't stop the sale of Rangers' assets in his capacity as security-holder. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
gunslinger 270 Posted April 23, 2012 Author Share Posted April 23, 2012 And even if we owed Whyte money, he couldn't stop the sale of Rangers' assets in his capacity as security-holder.what about his capacity as majority shareholder? Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
nachothelegend 1,932 Posted April 23, 2012 Share Posted April 23, 2012 We can't owe Whyte and Ticketus the same money.Some seem to believe we do.I sense another TBK manipulation onslaught.And even if we owed Whyte money, he couldn't stop the sale of Rangers' assets in his capacity as security-holder.I have been sitting here Pulling my Hair out about this .Ticketus gave Whyte Money. He gave 18 Mil to LBG, and fucked off with the rest .He surely cant be due anything through any sale of Rangers .He also made off with the PAYE 9 Mil . And it must be Ticketus who have more say than any in this Sale. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bluepeter9 5,167 Posted April 23, 2012 Share Posted April 23, 2012 would this stop them being sold to a newco without his permission?Mmmm depends on their structure so I would say yes but I suspect that is something that would and should be challenged in court. (it would all depend on his validity to take such a charge as that implies he lent us cash ) note that this has nothing to do with his shareholding other than the validity to provide the charge to himself ( I.e. I have no fking idea without details ) Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
gunslinger 270 Posted April 23, 2012 Author Share Posted April 23, 2012 hmmm more questions than answers. thanks guys. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bluepeter9 5,167 Posted April 23, 2012 Share Posted April 23, 2012 hmmm more questions than answers. thanks guys.Welcome to the world of f d& p Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ray 105 Posted April 23, 2012 Share Posted April 23, 2012 Laugh I nearly cried, even snyde have caught on Whyte is driving the bus, now I know why polos have hole. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
gunslinger 270 Posted April 23, 2012 Author Share Posted April 23, 2012 Welcome to the world of f d& p Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
DarcheVinny 1,003 Posted April 23, 2012 Share Posted April 23, 2012 If he hasn't loaned the company any money then he won't be owed anything and the creditor pot will be shared amongst the unsecured creditors.A debenture document must be filed at the same time you - as a director - lend your company money. In Whyte's case, this document was filed on March 21st. Of course, we were already in administration at this stage, which leaves me really confused as to how this document was filed and money loaned? Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Polo 1,433 Posted April 23, 2012 Share Posted April 23, 2012 what about his capacity as majority shareholder?Same. There's nothing he can do with the assets which belong to the company. The company's assets are under the control of the administrators. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bluepeter9 5,167 Posted April 23, 2012 Share Posted April 23, 2012 A debenture document must be filed at the same time you - as a director - lend your company money. In Whyte's case, this document was filed on March 21st. Of course, we were already in administration at this stage, which leaves me really confused as to how this document was filed and money loaned?He doubled his investment by loaning a quid !! And took the charge over ibrox as security knowing this fks moves Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
gunslinger 270 Posted April 23, 2012 Author Share Posted April 23, 2012 I'm sorry I asked now. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Polo 1,433 Posted April 23, 2012 Share Posted April 23, 2012 A debenture document must be filed at the same time you - as a director - lend your company money. In Whyte's case, this document was filed on March 21st. Of course, we were already in administration at this stage, which leaves me really confused as to how this document was filed and money loaned?What document are you talking about (the 21st March one)? Is this one granted by Wavetower (whatever it's called now) in favour of Liberty Capital?In Scotland a floating charge (or other security document) doesn't need to be filed at the same time the loan is made. I could loan your company money today and then we could agree that your company secure it with a floating charge next year. The loan would be unsecured until the security was signed and registered though. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Polo 1,433 Posted April 23, 2012 Share Posted April 23, 2012 Laugh I nearly cried, even snyde have caught on Whyte is driving the bus, now I know why polos have hole.You're a sandwhich short of a picnic. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skelf 1,153 Posted April 23, 2012 Share Posted April 23, 2012 No. Tried explaining this to Ray earlier but he's a moron. The chargeholder will have priority on the proceeds of sale to the extent they're owed anything.http://www.legislati.../45/schedule/B1 Aye he is a bit 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.