Bluedell

Calscot, you were talking about the amount that they were morally owed. If you think that the amount is based on morals then knock yourself out. As for the rest of your post, I think you're reading too much into my simple statement which was only referring to the amount due to Ticketus. I find it a bit bizarre that you base the amount that Ticketus "deserve" to have repaid to them on what was done with the cash by the club/Group, which is out of their control, rather than what they actually advanced, but I guess you have your reasons.

Morals have got nothing tio do with it. It's the legal situation. It appears to me that what happened was as follows: 1. Ticketus pay £24m to Collyer Bristow, which is used as proof of funding. 2. Whyte buys the club for £1. 3. Rangers issue an invoice to Ticketus for £24m but ask for the cash to be paid to Rangers Group. 4. Ticketus allow CB to release the cash. 5. Rangers Group take (some of?) the cash and use £18m to pay off the bank loan. The position is that Rangers raised the invoice for the £24m and Ticketus allowed the cash to be released into whatever account the directors of the club saw fit. We may not like the fact that CW acted the way he did but it doesn't mean that he is liable for the cash (subject to any security). He acted as a director of the club and the club is liable. The club missed its first repayment to Ticketus and presumably that's when the the £24m became £27m. Edit - Calscot, I'm not convinced any of the Ticketus cash was ever actually paid directly into the club.

It appears that we owe more because Ticketus paid more.

£27 million? My simplistic view would be that they didn't lend us money. They "bought" future season tickets, and if they are not going to get them then they would be due back the cash that they put in. As for the other stuff, VAT would be around 16.7% and not 25% and VAT would likely be payable immediately as the club would have raised an invoice.

I wonder why anyone thought he would be?

Why would they do that? We then go into liquidation and they get even less. This "scupper a CVA" is justification for including them on the deal, but it sems unlikely that they would take this option.

What rate of interest is payable on the £10m working capital? Over what period is it repayable? What security will they be granted?

So we cold get rid of them now through a CVA or they can take £10m of fans' money post CVA. Presumably the same amount of money will be available in a CVA so we just pay everyone else a little more and Ticketus take cash from us after. We still have to make a repayment to them, even if we get knocked out in the first round of Europe. Let's say that the saverangers £15m is realised in a share issue. That means that 2/3 of the cash raised from the fans will ultimately end up in the pockets of Ticketus. Excuse me if I'm not too enthusiastic about the deal with the company that must have known what Whyte was up to when they advanced him the cash pre-takeover.

TBK propaganda. The CVA offer need to be better than liquidation, but would not need to be megabucks.

Do we have a definitive list of them yet?

If it was tax avoidance then there's nothing HMRC can do about it. If the EBTs are illegal then they go after the company that should have paid the tax and it's holding company at that time.

So much for the RFFF claims...unless our money was used to pay them as well.

I think there may have been another part to his game plan that fell down when the Ticketus deal was made public, but yes, that was a large part of his plan.

These are fans who have taken time off their jobs to put their valid points across to Regan and he has treated them with disdain. He should consider his position. Perhaps it's difficult for him to operate independently of his puppet master.

And how do I get in touch with him, mate?

He writes the cheques?

So who is the best person to contact about the RFFF? Any idea, PLG?

What about Dundee Utd being the biggest opponents to us having the season extended in the UEFA cup season? It's hardly one incident that has annoyed Rangers and their club and its directors have been causing hassle for some time. You reap what you sew.

I didn't know he was involved either. Don't think I've seen his name mentioned along the way.

I thought that the administrators would have no say in where the RFFF cash was to be spent?

There's a difference between what the club is due to pay and what the RFFF can spend its money on. Some may think the difference is pedantic but I think it's important.

Who was that from?

So why propose to use Ticketus as a funding facility? If raising cash isn't a problem then surely they would have access to cheaper (and more acceptable)sources of capital?

Yes, in my experience it is strictly adhered to. Don't follow your "off-shore companies" question. What are you referring to?

Which resulted in the Pensions Act 1995 being put in place.