Jump to content

Ticketus


derekweir29
 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 63
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Means if they don't get involved with a bidder then they have a good chance of getting hee haw and will probably go to the wall.

Why would they make that choice though? Are the going to go after whyte or just take a pence in the pound deal like the rest?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Would it not make more sense for them to pull out if they are assured to get the money off whyte but if they are part of a takeover they take a hit? Does this mean we owe ticketus nothing and down to whyte to pay it now?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ticketus is set to announce that it will not fund any takeover bid for Rangers.

It is understood that the tough sanctions imposed on the Ibrox side by the SFA earlier this week were the decisive factor for the company.

Ticketus to withdraw funding from Rangers’ takeover bids

A company source says SFA sanctions have led to it backing out of deals

A Ticketus source told STV News: “A lot has happened over the last few weeks and, especially after the SFA’s decision, we no longer think we can get a return for our investors.”

Ticketus first came to prominence when it emerged Rangers owner Craig Whyte received £25.3m, with the company buying the rights to 100,000 season tickets for the next four years.

Whyte subsequently used the money to fund his takeover of an 85.3% shareholding of the club, paying off an £18m debt to Lloyds Banking Group.

After Rangers went into administration on February 14, Ticketus started discussions with potential buyers of the club, including the Blue Knights consortium and Singaporean businessman Bill Ng.

The company subsequently became part of the Blue Knights' formal takeover bid for Rangers, which was submitted on April 4.

http://news.stv.tv/scotland/305106-ticketus-to-withdraw-funding-from-rangers-takeover-bids/

Link to post
Share on other sites

it means that a CVA is going to be next to impossible as the main creditor (ticketus) could veto any CVA plan and demand the full amount ... i still dont get how we can be responsible for money they gave Whyte when he didnt even own the club!? could i then put septic on ebay and then they would be responsible for paying that person back for money lost ? got a feeling the money they want to sue Whyte lawyers for would have been used to pay ticketus off

Link to post
Share on other sites

it means that a CVA is going to be next to impossible as the main creditor (ticketus) could veto any CVA plan and demand the full amount ... i still dont get how we can be responsible for money they gave Whyte when he didnt even own the club!? could i then put septic on ebay and then they would be responsible for paying that person back for money lost ? got a feeling the money they want to sue Whyte lawyers for would have been used to pay ticketus off

Ticketus may not be the main creditor, what about HMRC? If the EBT tax case is lost HMRC is the main creditor. RFC may have reached an agreement with HMRC to drop the EBT defence if HMRC agree to a CVA. That would let HMRC chase thousands of other companies and football clubs which used EBTs. I can't see what Ticketus have to gain unless there is something else in the background.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ticketus may not be the main creditor, what about HMRC? If the EBT tax case is lost HMRC is the main creditor. RFC may have reached an agreement with HMRC to drop the EBT defence if HMRC agree to a CVA. That would let HMRC chase thousands of other companies and football clubs which used EBTs. I can't see what Ticketus have to gain unless there is something else in the background.

Could be a move once again to highlight the role the sfa are playing in this situation. Don't forget they still have this independent law firm looking at the issue of double contracts. You know the independent law firm that represents ra sellic and has also represented the sfa.

One has to wonder when they will unleash the outcome of that witch-hunt.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ticketus, as it stands, are the major creditor and could of course block any possible CVA. However the logic of doing so would be unclear. Blocking the CVA would force liquidation, and if in liquidation the sale of assets generated less than the CVA on offer so why would Ticketus choose to block the CVA and in doing so cost themselves money?

Of course they may believe liquidation will bring in more funds than the CVA, but in that case the administrators are duty bound to go for liquidation anyway, I believe?

What this move may suggest is that the sanctions against us, have prompted ticketus to doubt they can adequately recoup the funds owed, and are certainly not willing to invest more, given the risk, instead preferring to take whatever they can get from CVA/liquidation sames as any other creditor?

Link to post
Share on other sites

it means that a CVA is going to be next to impossible as the main creditor (ticketus) could veto any CVA plan and demand the full amount ... i still dont get how we can be responsible for money they gave Whyte when he didnt even own the club!? could i then put septic on ebay and then they would be responsible for paying that person back for money lost ? got a feeling the money they want to sue Whyte lawyers for would have been used to pay ticketus off

Like it or not the Ticketus money was used to pay off Lloyds, so we cannot simply say it's nothing to do with us. That would make us accountable to Lloyds again and I'm not sure that would make us better off. One thing is for sure this will not make things easy for any bidder.

Link to post
Share on other sites

No matter what anyone says the Rangers transaction has been peculiar to say the least; so anyone assuming that they will just waltz in and do this or that is being naive. Duff and Phelps have their critics, but they are Court appointed, and a level of ethics and integrity will be expected of them. No one can really pre-judge what the consequences of this period of administration will be.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe after they jumped ship and backed the Singapore group, Murray has told them to fuck off and replaced them with Kennedy? Kennedy was offering an 8 digit sum which won't have been far off what Ticketus brought to TBK bid.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

  • Upcoming Events

    No upcoming events found

×
×
  • Create New...