bluebear54 0 Posted February 17, 2012 Share Posted February 17, 2012 Thanks FS - we rely on you guys to shine a light. In this area, I'm way over my head. Couple of questions - wht are the dates shown as being 1999, yet CW is the signatory? Second, is that Phil Betts signature there? (last seen galloping into the sunset?) 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
forlanssister 3,050 Posted February 17, 2012 Author Share Posted February 17, 2012 (edited) Thanks FS - we rely on you guys to shine a light. In this area, I'm way over my head.Couple of questions - wht are the dates shown as being 1999, yet CW is the signatory? Second, is that Phil Betts signature there? (last seen galloping into the sunset?) Date was the date the original charge was granted in favour of the Bank of Scotland. probably one of the most important points of the whole deal for Whyte. Yes it's Phil Betts signature the other I'm pretty sure is Gary Withey the secretary and not Craig Whyte. (IIRC) Edited February 17, 2012 by forlanssister Caveat. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bluebear54 0 Posted February 17, 2012 Share Posted February 17, 2012 Date was the date the original charge was granted in favour of the Bank of Scotland. probably one of the most important points of the whole deal for Whyte. Yes it's Phil Betts signature the other I'm pretty sure is Gary Withey the secretary and not Craig Whyte. (IIRC) Would this imply that the charge for the tickets - period 2011 - 2015 was more or less transferred to Ticketus? 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
forlanssister 3,050 Posted February 17, 2012 Author Share Posted February 17, 2012 Would this imply that the charge for the tickets - period 2011 - 2015 was more or less transferred to Ticketus? I think that was the intention but they f*&ked up the paper work hence them applying to have it stricken from the record. As I said there wasn't a replacement issued in Scotland but that doesn't mean their isn't a security via the RFC Group Ltd which is registered in England. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ergatrude 0 Posted February 17, 2012 Share Posted February 17, 2012 Does this mean that we have still to receive these monies & if so COULD that then be used as leverage in terms of get the CVA set up & running & ask HRMC to accept a large down payment & then set payments over a period for the remainder? Or does it mean someone has hit a jackpot 24m? Or am I way off the mark? 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
capstans 0 Posted February 17, 2012 Share Posted February 17, 2012 Somewhat strangely Betts signed as the creditor. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrahimHemdani 1 Posted February 18, 2012 Share Posted February 18, 2012 (edited) Would this imply that the charge for the tickets - period 2011 - 2015 was more or less transferred to Ticketus? Not necessarily. Firstly IMHO Craig is correct, "tickets" are defined as "season tickets" (for the four seasons from 2011/12 - 2014/15 (incidentally proving CW to be a liar). So this document does not refer to anything other than season tickets. What this document does is separate and release the "season tickets" and the "ticket proceeds" i.e. the income from the sale of the specified number of tickets from the floating charge over the assets of the company. I believe that the reason that there is reference to "Designated Accounts" is that the season ticket money goes into a separate bank account, called Rangers Hospitality Ltd which is linked to the normal bank account (which is still with LBG). This means that the company would be free to pledge those assets i.e. the future value of the tickets or indeed the tickets themselves to any other company say in return for money upfront. The document does not say what Rangers have done with these assets. However, if the statement from Octopus is correct, they have purchased tickets for the current and the (presumably unissued) tickets for next three seasons, which means that if they are issued (for the next three seasons) then whoever buys one would be paying Octopus not Rangers or if they were paying Rangers then Rangers would owe the money to Octopus because they own the rights to the tickets. Although Octopus say they do not lend money, in effect that is what they have done; they have lent it against the future sale value of the tickets. For this to make commercial sense they must have bought the tickets at a significant discount to the face value. If Rangers were to ask fans to buy tickets weekly in future (as I think Leeds Utd did in similar circumstances) then it would appear that whoever has bought the "season tickets" could whistle for their money unless there is some other agreement in the background that compels Rangers to offer at least the specified number of "season "tickets". Even then Rangers could encourage sales of tickets on a match by match basis, say by selling at a discount to season tickets and then all that revenue (sorry bad word) would belong to the Club. More to the point perhaps, if it wasn't Rangers FC who "sold" the "season tickets" and therefore as the Aministrators suggest there is no legal charge against these assets for that money in other words Rangers FC still "own" the tickets , then Rangers may not have any liability at all. Lastly, does anyone seriously doubt that Whyte used that money, however he acquired it, to pay off LBG and is that not why the Administrators can't find it? Edited February 18, 2012 by BrahimHemdani 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
forlanssister 3,050 Posted February 18, 2012 Author Share Posted February 18, 2012 Somewhat strangely Betts signed as the creditor. Perhaps he was working on behalf of Octopus/Ticketus rather than RFC would imagine there was a rather healthy commission to be earned there far larger than the one Close Leasing would've paid re the catering deal. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
der Berliner 3,257 Posted February 18, 2012 Share Posted February 18, 2012 May I just put in that these documents do not exactly look genuine to me. Not that I know how these papers would or do look like, but the above sheets look very average for such important business matters. On a sidenote, you do wonder how someone gets hold of them, i.e. stuff that would be deemed confidential. Have heads rolled over this? 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
forlanssister 3,050 Posted February 18, 2012 Author Share Posted February 18, 2012 Not necessarily.What this document does is separate and release the "season tickets" and the "ticket proceeds" i.e. the income from the sale of the specified number of tickets from the floating charge over the assets of the company. I think that was the intention but did they bugger it up by stating?: "Floating charge over the whole assets of the Company excluding Released Assets" Then they list the "Released Assets" Tickets, Season Tickets, Ticket Proceeds, etc,,,etc... Did they inadvertently release the entire floating charge except for the "Released Assets", meaning they did the opposite of what they intended therefore had to get the Court to strike the documents? 0 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.