BrahimHemdani 1 Posted March 13, 2012 Author Share Posted March 13, 2012 Paul Clark has stated the D&P have not been paid a penny yet.....Whatever they are owed goes into the pot with the other Creditors!!! 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! 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
craig 5,199 Posted March 13, 2012 Share Posted March 13, 2012 I want them to forget about the Collyer Bristow money and concentrate on ridding us of the fraudulent Ticketus deal done by Whyte. Why do they need to be mutually exclusive ? The administrators arent the experts on the Ticketus deal, and you can be absolutely certain that they will have lawyers on the case trying to get RFC out of hat deal. And they will also likely have lawyers attempting to get at that Collyer Bristow money. And it is also quite possible that they wont be using the same firm of lawyers to attempt to clarify both cases. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrahimHemdani 1 Posted March 13, 2012 Author Share Posted March 13, 2012 I wanted PM to succeed prior to Whyte as it was my opinion Whyte was the frontman for Ellis. I'm sure had Rangers qualified for Europe after the qualifyers Ellis would have stepped in for his piece of the pie. Maybe we should be happy Ally was such a poor manager... 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. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
craig 5,199 Posted March 13, 2012 Share Posted March 13, 2012 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. Is this confirmed by anyone other than Ellis ? because when he made that statement ther may have been truth to it, but it also seemed like someone trying to distance themselves as quickly as they could from a very sticky situation. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
A Horse With No Name 0 Posted March 13, 2012 Share Posted March 13, 2012 You make some fair points AHWNN but making statements like the one highlighted don't add to your case. Of course you are right - just a bit paranoid with what has gone on before! Maybe best to see the worse outlook, probably not! 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zappa 0 Posted March 13, 2012 Share Posted March 13, 2012 Why do they need to be mutually exclusive ? The administrators arent the experts on the Ticketus deal, and you can be absolutely certain that they will have lawyers on the case trying to get RFC out of hat deal. And they will also likely have lawyers attempting to get at that Collyer Bristow money. And it is also quite possible that they wont be using the same firm of lawyers to attempt to clarify both cases. That Collyer Bristow money (reportedly £3.6m) doesn't belong to Rangers as far as we know. Unless I'm missing something, then that money is the remainder of the money Craig Whyte borrowed from Ticketus to complete the takeover of the club, so it stands to reason that it's not the club's money and that the club doesn't have a valid claim to it. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
A Horse With No Name 0 Posted March 13, 2012 Share Posted March 13, 2012 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. There's absolutely no way you can know that for certain. I'll be holding onto that suspicion and tbh how you can say it's nonsense is conjecture (as is my opinion), given the life that c**t Whyte leads it's insulting to use that term on me! Conjecture is never factual therefore you're wrong to use that term! PRETTY POOR OF YOU! 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
A Horse With No Name 0 Posted March 13, 2012 Share Posted March 13, 2012 Also, using insulting emotive terms against fellow posters is woeful in terms of debate - if that's what we can expect from you I'll be looking for the ignore button. Absolute nonsense indeed! 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
forlanssister 3,059 Posted March 13, 2012 Share Posted March 13, 2012 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. I've yet to see any evidence whatsoever that Ellis is actually a "property developer" he is merely listed as a director of a relatively tiny property company. He is a director and 63% shareholder in Blunham Properties Ltd which has a net worth of - £140,172 (yes minus) He is also a director of Newaston Ltd which was only registered on 26/11/2010 and has yet to file accounts. All his other active directorships are of RFC Group ltd, RFC plc and its' various subsidiaries. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
forlanssister 3,059 Posted March 13, 2012 Share Posted March 13, 2012 From the Scotsman PAUL Murray has confirmed the identity of several members of his Blue Knights consortium which plans to take over Rangers and move the club out of administration: businessmen John Bennett, Scott Murdoch and Douglas Park. But while the identity of his partners sheds new light on the development of the consortium, it is the link-up announced last week with Ticketus, the firm at the centre of a deal with Rangersâ?? biggest shareholder, Craig Whyte, that could carry the greatest significance. Ticketus advanced Whyte £24million in exchange for the income from future season tickets. There is an argument about whether Rangers or Whyte himself are liable for that sum, with one body of opinion suggesting that the club may not owe the firm a penny. Rather than go down that route of defying Ticketus, however, Murray has opted to take them on board as part of his business plan for the takeover of Rangers. In so doing, he aims not only to avoid costly and potentially lengthy legal action, but also to secure a sizeable percentage of the funding he needs for his takeover to proceed successfully. Under Murrayâ??s plan, Ticketus will play three different roles in the consortium. First, it will provide some of the funding for the Blue Knightsâ?? purchase of Rangers. Second, it will ensure the new owners have enough cash to keep the business going until a share issue can generate new funds. And third, the terms of its season-ticket deal will be revised, to become less onerous to Rangers. Murray has not specified the sum he and his colleagues are willing to pay for Rangers, or the amount which will be forwarded by Ticketus. But the London-based companyâ??s balance sheet will be a major asset in the bid. Similarly, administrators Duff & Phelps need to be convinced that any new owners will have enough money to fund Rangers as a going concern - and there, too, Ticketus have an obvious role to play. Those two aspects of Murrayâ??s plan are clear-cut, but the third is more arguable. If, as has been suggested, Ticketus may be due nothing from Rangers, why make a deal that could see the firm profit by several million pounds? The answer, quite simply, is that Murray thinks Rangers will also be the beneficiaries thanks to the overall deal. In other words, without being assured of getting at least some of their money back, Ticketus would be a whole lot less willing to go ahead with the first two parts of Murrayâ??s three-part plan. And without those first two parts, the plan would be a lot less likely to succeed. Although they entered into the deal with Whyte in good faith, Ticketus have been tainted by association with the shareholder in the eyes of many Rangers supporters. Their involvement with Murray is a tangible sign of their goodwill towards the club, and should therefore repair at least some of that damage to their reputation. For those supporters who remain extremely unhappy with Ticketus, the thought of not buying future season tickets could arise. But, according to football finance expert Neil Patey of Ernst & Young, such a course of action would only hurt the club. â??If the agreement between Ticketus and Whyte were found to be legally binding on Rangers, supporters would not be able to exert pressure on Ticketus by declining to buy season tickets,â? Patey said yesterday. And the same thing would apply if and when Murray, on behalf of Rangers, concluded a deal with Ticketus which acknowledged liability. â??Rangers would still owe Ticketus exactly the same amount, and would simply have been denied a source of revenue to help repay that debt.â? Another advantage of that agreement between Murray and Ticketus, as Patey pointed out, is that as potential joint owners of Rangers they would not be creditors under the terms of a Company Voluntary Arrangement (CVA), the vehicle required to take a business out of administration. â??If Ticketus are owed money by Rangers. under a CVA they would waive their right to that money. If they were deemed to be creditors of Craig Whyteâ??s, they would have nothing to waive under a CVA.â? With Ticketus out of the way as far as a CVA was concerned, HMRC would emerge as the major creditors whose agreement was required. This would be the case no matter the outcome of the first-tier tax tribunal which could land Rangers with a bill for £49m, as even if that tribunal finds in the clubâ??s favour, a bill for almost £15m arising from Whyteâ??s stewardship would remain to be dealt with. â??The administrators would have to do a deal with the Revenue first,â? Patey added. â??You cannot have that potential debt hanging over the club. The administrators would have to bring HMRC on board and ask â??Do you sign up to the CVA or not?â?? If and when they reached agreement, they would then say to Paul Murray what the structure of the CVA was.â? It would then be up to Murray and his colleagues to accept those terms or not. And with Ticketus on his side, he would be a lot more able to accept them Still need more meat on the bones re Ticketus imho. 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.