BrahimHemdani

OK I apologise, you are correct I shouldn't have used emotive language. Unfortunately the person who passed me the info is terminally ill in hospital and I was thinking of him when I read your comments and got a bit emotional about it. Sorry.

Ellis confirmed it to one of my contacts.

Yes, I thought you must be joking but haven't seen enough of your posts to know!

I am sorry to have to tell you that that is absolute nonsense. Whyte brought Ellis on board for his property development expertise and promised him a 25% shareholding and reneged on the deal. Ellis is sorry he ever met the guy.

Not quite! What he said was that the creditors have to agree to their remuneration and that there is a set scale; one thing you can be sure of is that the Administrators won't be accepting 10p in the pound!

You make some fair points AHWNN but making statements like the one highlighted don't add to your case.

There are indeed BD, but I just wanted this short and snappy to try to interest a particular journalist. Thanks to all near 500 who have viewed and for all the replies.

I understand supporter unity but I do not understand the purpose of this fund and if you read the earlier posts I am certainly not alone in that.

If I was them (and no doubt you will be glad that I am not) I would ask all potential bidders to put up a deposit of say £100,000 (perhaps more) which would be refundable if you make a serious bid with PROOF i.e. real proof not CW type proof that you have the necessary dosh by 31/3 failing which you lose your deposit. That would sort the men from the boys.

I have worked a bit with Zappa on this and we have a few more "SIX QUESTIONS FOR...." in mind. I MAY be able to get a certain friend in the media to follow up if the questions are sharp enough. Here are our starters for SIX: 1.Why form a consortium with Ticketus if they may not even be creditors according to Paul Clark? 2.What have you offered the Assembly et al, to get them on board? 3.What have the Assembly offered the consortium? 4.What exact parties and individuals are forming the consortium and what are their planned roles? 5.How much money does the consortium have or expect to have when it makes its bid? 6.Will there be a new share offer, membership scheme such as in German club models or both? We probabaly know the answers to some of these already but it would be nice to get them on the record. Feel free to suggest amendments or new questions.

That is my concern but whether such a clause would be enforceable particularly against new owners is another matter.

Whoever owns Rangers FC come the end of March/ beginning of April, will have to have 100% certainty on the legality of Ticketus claim to own a percentage of the season tickets so that they know what will happen to the revenue from sales IF they decide to sell season tickets. So from that point of view it would make sense for Ticketus to curry favour with any prospective buyer and they would want the fan's groups onside to give the whole thing an air of respectability and authority. However, if no other consortium is gong down the same route and no other consortium is prepared to offer the fan's groups anything (and why would they unless they have something concrete to put on the table) then that tells its own story does it not.

Because, as the following posters make it clear, the Administrators say that the £1M/Month has been met so what is the money needed for? The fact that the money would be properly protected is one thing but that is irrelevant if there is no obvious purpose behind it. I want to see who the serious bidders are and if they are intending a new share offering or a membership scheme and as others say there is the issue of the season ticket renewals; all of which I would want clarity on before I would consider investing.

YES that would be a short and fair summary.

Too many average players is part of the problem.

I am sorry to say but this is utter nonsense.

It would be inconceivable in my view if a new owner had any link to Ticketus whatsover.

As I thought, the trade off is a seat on the Board.

They had two for the ticket centre but the Administrators sold them.

This article was published in INVESTMENT WEEK on 17 February and sheds some light on the arrangements. Apologies if it has been posted before, some of it is obviously old news now. Octopus 'working with administrators' of Glasgow Rangers Octopus Investments has said it is working with the administrators of Glasgow Rangers after one of its investments was caught up in the debacle. Octopus' Protected Enterprise Investment Scheme has a stake in Ticketus, which has bought up season tickets for future Rangers games worth £24m. Octopus Investments clarified their arrangement with the stricken club, through their Ticketus arm, after Rangers' administrators revealed the money could not be traced in the club accounts. In a statement Octopus said: "Ticketus is one of the many entities into which Octopus Protected EIS invests. Ticketus has purchased tickets for Glasgow Rangers games for a number of seasons in advance, as it has done for a number of years previously with the club. "Ticketus does not lend money; Ticketus is the owner of assets - the tickets. Octopus is continuing to work with the administrators and Glasgow Rangers on this matter. We have no plans to make any further comments at this stage." Administrators Duff and Phelps said they are trying to recover a £24m payment or loan from Ticketus for advanced season ticket sales which appears to have disappeared from accounts. David Whitehouse, a managing director at Duff and Phelps said it is believed the payment was made to a parent company account rather than the club's account, and they were checking with lawyers that have worked for the firm in the past. The loan is not secured against assets of the club but it means Ticketus is unlikely to be re-paid in full should Rangers exit the administration process, according to the BBC. Octopus owns the £100m company Ticketus in its £500m Protected EIS product and used to hold it in its secure VCT, although the group confirmed this investment was closed a few months ago. Octopus' company literature described Ticketus as "an example of a VCT qualifying company that has the characteristics that we will seek for investments. All the investments we make are into companies with lower risk business models. They might want to re-write that last bit now. VCT's (Venture Capital Trusts) are generally 5 year investment vehicles which are approved by HMRC who describe them as "investing indirectly in a range of small higher-risk trading companies " You get 30% tax relief on such investments (previously it was the full 40% high rate tax) and on top of this, any dividends paid by a trust are free from income tax and exempt from capital gains tax if you hold the shares for five years. Some VCT's are limited life - for five or six years.

Is entirely possible but if that is the case and you are Ticketus why would you join the consortium? I think this is much more likely. None of those mentioned has "serious" money except King and he has his own problems e.g. if you considered that you were "fit and proper" why would you ask the question? However, whilst joining with Ticketus might relieve the season ticket issue in some way, is it likely that they would say give up say half the £24M or put in new money? So how does that help them do a deal? The RST has 50,000 shares (0.08%) and say £100,000+ in Gersave, that won't buy a seat at the table. A long term plan to raise money (such as that proposed in 2010) might do that.

I was barred from FF some years ago and declined Mr Dingwall's offer to reinstate me when I was Secretary of RST in 2010. However, what you say does not surprise me. Even if Ticketus legally own the non-existent season tickets, what are they going to do if fans don't buy them?

For me the key point is "I find it hard to believe that a new owner would recognise such a contract, particularly when the ticket revenue stream is of such significance to the club's recovery. " "You have to assume they're (Ticketus) aligned with the Blue Knights consortium as a means to protect their funding and their reputation." Did he read my post before he wrote the article? "Ticketus can offer the so-called Blue Knights a deal on that revenue stream over three seasons that it claims it owns, in exchange for an absence of legal tussling. That means it wouldn't necessarily want or need to take an equity stake in Rangers' ownership." BUT if you were the Blue Knights and you accepted the Administrators position that Ticketus don't have a claim on the Club for the season tickets why would you align yourselves with them or allow them to align themselves with you? There HAS to be more to this, possibly the deal is "in exchange for an absence of legal tussling." AND if you were the Supporters groups why on earth would you align yoursleves with the people who effectively financed the Whyte takeover with YOUR money, UNLESS you had been promised something for your support? Something like a place on the Board perhaps.

There is only one way to drink real fench brandy (cognac). You need a proper brandy glass (balloon) and warm it in in your hand, or over steam, or a naked flame (I have a cradle device, with a wick and meths burner). NEVER put ANYTHING in it unless it is cheap supermarket rubbish or Martell and absolutely NEVER put ice in it as the Americans tends to do. My preference is Courvoisier (Le Cognac de Naploeon) 3 star rather than the 5 star or Remy Martin 5 star. I think this is taking a bit of a liberty with this thread, perhaps a new one on liquor and how to drink it, is in order. :cheers:

If Ticketus thought that they had a genuine claim on future season ticket sales or that Rangers couldn't circumvent that, or they had a claim against Whyte why would they be part of a consortium? The only reason why they would join a bid for the club would be if they thought it was the only way to protect their "investment". Currently they are down £24M, Whyte isn't going to pay them back and neither are the Administrators. The only chance they have is if the new owners agree and collect the money or more likely some portion of the money, for them. They need the supporters groups onside for that purpose. There will be trade off there as well.