craig 5,199 Posted March 13, 2012 Share Posted March 13, 2012 Sadly I dont think any of us do BD. But if the administrators seem confident that is the case then you would have to think they have some kind of evidence to suggest it. Or maybe even Whyte has said he would step aside (doubt it) if we get new owners. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bears 0 Posted March 13, 2012 Share Posted March 13, 2012 Sadly I dont think any of us do BD. But if the administrators seem confident that is the case then you would have to think they have some kind of evidence to suggest it. Or maybe even Whyte has said he would step aside (doubt it) if we get new owners. Sky sources understand Craig Whyte will step aside if the right deal for him and #Rangers emerges. This follows his meeting with admins. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zappa 0 Posted March 13, 2012 Share Posted March 13, 2012 I think it depends on Craig Whyte's willingness to sell his shares. If he doesn't want to sell them the administrators would need to go to court and try to have the court force Whyte into selling his shares. That's my take on it because as far as I know if Whyte hadn't outlawed himself he could still have come back to Glasgow and went to the administrators with his own proposal for bringing the club out of admin' and back to health via a CVA. Clearly that's very unlikely to happen in Whyte's case given that he's not welcome in Govan. The other option the administrators have is obviously the nasty "L" word and a newco. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
calscot 0 Posted March 13, 2012 Share Posted March 13, 2012 Does anyone know what the bidders (including the Blue Knights) will be buying? 1. Is it Craig whyte's shares? Can the administrators sell them? 2. Is it everyone's shares? Can the administrators sell my shares? 3. is it just the trade and assets of the club? Will it be a newco? I thought to sell the company without shareholders' permission, it would have to be as a newco, therefore the oldco no longer exists and so the shareholders have nothing. That way they are looking after the creditors and so need no permission as the company will have been compulsory liquidated in any case. I'm speculating in this case, that to preserve oldco they must have Craig Whyte's permission to sell his shares and to get that he'd want a pay-off. I would guess other shares would be intact but worth pro-rata of the company's worth. If the new owners get to 90% of the shares they can compulsory purchase all the other shares, which at this time will be almost nothing. Please correct me if I'm wrong. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zappa 0 Posted March 13, 2012 Share Posted March 13, 2012 Sky sources understand Craig Whyte will step aside if the right deal for him and #Rangers emerges. This follows his meeting with admins. I wonder how much he wants to GTF. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bears 0 Posted March 13, 2012 Share Posted March 13, 2012 I wonder how much he wants to GTF. I get the feeling he's going to walk away with a lot of money. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
craig 5,199 Posted March 13, 2012 Share Posted March 13, 2012 RFFF could use their excess funds from the initiative to pay him off That is a JOKE... just in case some didnt realise 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zappa 0 Posted March 13, 2012 Share Posted March 13, 2012 I get the feeling he's going to walk away with a lot of money. I think he'll be looking for at least a million times more than what he paid, but Ticketus can probably force him into accepting a minimal offer for his shares by threatening him over the £24.4m. One of the worrying things with the Blue Nights bid is that if they're using Ticketus as leverage with Whyte, then Whyte will no doubt want a guarantee that Ticketus aren't going to go after him for the £24.4m, so Rangers would be taking on at least a good chunk of that debt to Ticketus. Paul Murray has actually mentioned that we would be negotiating a reduced payment of that £24.4m debt, but reduced by how much? It's still going to be a large debt that the club could probably avoid if the administrators sell the club to someone who isn't in bed with Ticketus. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
calscot 0 Posted March 13, 2012 Share Posted March 13, 2012 I don't think the £24.4< will be reduced by a penny. I think he's talking about a vast reduction in the terms which sound extortionate - hence my reference to Wonga.com. It's probably more like getting a sub prime lender to start charging you pretty shit but more close to normal banking rates. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
der Berliner 3,267 Posted March 13, 2012 Share Posted March 13, 2012 I think he'll be looking for at least a million times more than what he paid, but Ticketus can probably force him into accepting a minimal offer for his shares by threatening him over the £24.4m. One of the worrying things with the Blue Nights bid is that if they're using Ticketus as leverage with Whyte, then Whyte will no doubt want a guarantee that Ticketus aren't going to go after him for the £24.4m, so Rangers would be taking on at least a good chunk of that debt to Ticketus. Paul Murray has actually mentioned that we would be negotiating a reduced payment of that £24.4m debt, but reduced by how much? It's still going to be a large debt that the club could probably avoid if the administrators sell the club to someone who isn't in bed with Ticketus. Well, I'm no businessman, but AFAIK, the Ticketus money makes up 60% of all SPL (?) ticket sales of these next three seasons? In that respect, Rangers (and not Whyte) were front-loaded to cover the Lloyds debt. "All" a future investor/onwer has to do now - since he does not have to live with any "real debt in our bank" - is to cover these 60% with investments of his own for these three years and afterwards, we'd be free of this front-loaded money and any outstanding bank debt. If Ticketus agrees to such a long-term deal, there would be no reason to harass Whyte for it. Strenuous for those first years, but we might be out of the woods thereafter. What the new owners would have to shoulder (and this is were the BK leave "their" money) is with the HMRC bill/-s, even though there should be money frozen in the accounts to cover a large chunk of the smaller bill. 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.