Ticketus

[Sobatai 70]

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.

There does not appear to be any evidence of the Ticketus money being in the Rangers FC plc system. It is true that Ticketus money was used to clear the debt to Lloyds, but it appears to have been handled by Rangers FC Group. Ticketus made a huge error in cutting a deal with Whyte. I think the people at Ticketus realise that ... they've tried to get something back from Rangers and now it looks like they're just writing it off.

[Tamb 126]

There does not appear to be any evidence of the Ticketus money being in the Rangers FC plc system. It is true that Ticketus money was used to clear the debt to Lloyds, but it appears to have been handled by Rangers FC Group. Ticketus made a huge error in cutting a deal with Whyte. I think the people at Ticketus realise that ... they've tried to get something back from Rangers and now it looks like they're just writing it off.

I doubt that they are going to write off £27million without a fight. That is taking wishfull thinking to extremes.

[bluenose48 951]

Has anything come out during the court case against Gary Withey. Maybe some double dealing and the ramifications have caused this change of heart.

[boss 1,941]

"after the SFA’s decision, we no longer think we can get a return for our investors.”

Bye, bye Regan.

[jimmyblue75 20]

Traynor mentioned last week that ticketus would not persue shyte along as he relinquished his shares to tbk.... This I can only assume ticketus will take whyte to the cleaners but how easily will whyte give up his shares now?? Known that cock he will demand £27 m for them

[LegendofCoop 17,287]

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.

The first part is true, however it's also true Whyte was nothing to do with Rangers at the time, (I know this sounds simplistic) so I'd imagine that they will now go after Whyte rather than write off the debt or accept a CVA. This is where it gets messy, as Whyte would then probably try & sue us for the 18m he paid Lloyds. I don't see how Lloyds would become involved again....they have their cash and are away into the sunset.

Either Ticketus are content to suck it & see what comes from the CVA, or it's a case of Ticketus V's Whyte, then Whyte V's RFC.

This could be great news for us in the short term, but could lead to further court proceedings in the future, unless Whyte somehow manages to hold onto some sort of holding on the club!

[broxibear87 129]

Bye, bye Regan.

I would think so.

[Skip 13]

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.

Surely the Ticketus money was paid to Whyte and then Whyte purchased the club?? Your boss doesn't own your house because the wages he pays you are used to pay your mortgage

[King_gazza 1,065]

I hope so.

Fixed

[LegendofCoop 17,287]

Traynor mentioned last week that ticketus would not persue shyte along as he relinquished his shares to tbk.... This I can only assume ticketus will take whyte to the cleaners but how easily will whyte give up his shares now?? Known that cock he will demand £27 m for them

I'm sure he could be persuaded!!

[Turnberry18 3,204]

I think a few things may have happened this week that have determined where Ticketus will go and where the administrators, if need be, will go. Who knows?

[gunslinger 270]

no point refusing a cva. the liquidation pot won't be any bigger.

[Jonok 1,245]

Bye, bye Regan.

His position is untenable,go now Regan

[Turnberry18 3,204]

no point refusing a cva. the liquidation pot won't be any bigger.

You must be knackered GS!

[Turnberry18 3,204]

Bye, bye Regan.

That, to me anyway, would make perfect sense. This man no longer has the confidence of the biggest club in Scotland, and on that basis alone has to go.

[DarcheVinny 1,003]

It means they are bullshitting.

[Tamb 126]

Surely the Ticketus money was paid to Whyte and then Whyte purchased the club?? Your boss doesn't own your house because the wages he pays you are used to pay your mortgage

You have totally lost me now. By that piece of deduction you admit that CW owns the club as he bought it with someone elses money, same as when I bought my house with the building societies money. Or are you offering another explanation that I can follow.

[Gash07 26]

Surely the Ticketus money was paid to Whyte and then Whyte purchased the club?? Your boss doesn't own your house because the wages he pays you are used to pay your mortgage

The complication here is that ticketus didn't just give Whyte a loan of money, Whyte sold them our St's. Tying both if them to us.

The issues seem to be:

1. How could Whyte have the right to sell our tickets before he was the owner.

2. Why then would the club be liable to two factions for, essentially, the same money. i.e we owe Whyte for clearing Lloyds debt and we owe Ticketus for the money he used to clear that debt.

I've yet to hear a logical explanation which covers these two points.

[Thinker 31]

I could be wrong on this, but I think the problem is that Whyte used the Ticketus money only to prove he had funds to invest, but he bought the 85% share for £1. He doesn't want to sell them for £1, he wants to ransom the club for as much as he can get.

Ticketus have to chase him if they can't get the money off us. But they'll try us first.

I think... It's a tangled web, to say the least.

[Yata 161]

If this means what my small brain thinks it does, and that ticketus aren't going to be able to screw us out of all our future income.

Then yeh, I could see myself supporting TBK's with BK involved

[Gash07 26]

I could be wrong on this, but I think the problem is that Whyte used the Ticketus money only to prove he had funds to invest, but he bought the 85% share for £1. He doesn't want to sell them for £1, he wants to ransom the club for as much as he can get.

Ticketus have to chase him if they can't get the money off us. But they'll try us first.

I think... It's a tangled web, to say the least.

No, he used the ticketus money to clear the 18m which we owed Lloyds, and instead we now owe him that cash.

[gunslinger 270]

You must be knackered GS!

little bit

[djbroxybear 660]

Don't see ticketus going away quietly from this either Whyte or Rangers owe them there dough or both.

[harry handsome 629]

Guys were in administration, the cash obtained from tickets by Whyte is well documented, better brains than ours will have that Sussex already. Do you really believe that ticketus are prepared to walk away from that amount of money. Whyte has publicly stated he personally guaranteed the money, lie or truth who knows but the comment is out there.

Brian Kennedy will be well aware of the legal ramifications of the Ticketus money.

[CanadianBacon 2,088]

I doubt that they are going to write off £27million without a fight. That is taking wishfull thinking to extremes.

Hold on - according to the original deal TBK's "thought" they had with Ticketus, TBK's would have only been paying back £10m to Ticketus - and were being offered an additional £10m 'float' - and even better - with no payments back to them in season's we didn't qualify for Europe.

That's a £17m hit right there - and an additional £10m into our pot (extra debt, thank you) into the bargain.

.....assuming you ever believed that one in the first instance.