ian1964 10,482 Posted March 18, 2012 Share Posted March 18, 2012 BLUE Knights bidder Paul Murray yesterday claimed the major tax case against Rangers was "a red herring". comment on this story 1 comment Related Stories Bobby Brown pulls off another top save for Rangers Save my beloved Rangers before I die OLDEST living Gers idol Bobby Brown tells of his anguish over clubâ??s plight Three-way fight for Rangers Craig Whyteâ??s life ban threat Sir David Murrayâ??s trying to dupe us all Awight mess over Celts slur The ex-Gers director also called on administrators to make a decision on the club's future before next Sunday's Old Firm clash. Murray's consortium of wealthy fans is one of only two confirmed bids. More are expected. Rangers already owe the taxman close to £15million and the so-called 'big tax case' could cost another £49million. But Murray said: "With the club in administration, liabilities are just piled on to each other. "If the club were to lose the case, which is still not certain, that liability is added to the liabilities that are there now. "In very simple terms, if there is £50million for creditors at the moment and that rises to £100million it just simply affects the pence in the pound that is available for the creditors." Murray believes his co-operation with Ticketus, who will provide initial financial backing without receiving ownership rights, is a huge advantage. A £24.4million cash injection from Ticketus allowed Craig Whyte to complete his £1 buyout by paying off the club's bank debt. Murray said: "By entering into a partnership with Ticketus, you essentially remove Ticketus from the pot. "So our offer is worth considerably more than any others because Ticketus is not part of the CVA." Read more: http://www.thescottishsun.co.uk/scotsol/homepage/news/4202346/Tax-fight-is-red-herring.html#ixzz1pRoXD9ZQ 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
der Berliner 3,321 Posted March 18, 2012 Share Posted March 18, 2012 Murray said: "By entering into a partnership with Ticketus, you essentially remove Ticketus from the pot. "So our offer is worth considerably more than any others because Ticketus is not part of the CVA." Unless ... the deal between Whyte and Ticketus, backed up by Whyte and not Rangers, is declared null-and-void. You do wonder still, what Ticketus would "demand" if the BK make it over the finishing line. On another note, I read that PM want that share issue with the cheapest share costing 1,000 pounds. With essentially next to none but sentimental return/influence for the respective shareholder. As in: since TBK will hold thousands upon thousands of shares and have a major say, people could invest a million of pounds for 1,000 share and still have next to no say? I'd rather spend 1,000 pounds for a "gold membership" (with some extras involved) and someone who has actually a say in matters of the club representing me than that. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bluedell 5,366 Posted March 18, 2012 Share Posted March 18, 2012 Murray said: "By entering into a partnership with Ticketus, you essentially remove Ticketus from the pot. "So our offer is worth considerably more than any others because Ticketus is not part of the CVA." So we would owe Ticketus nothing post-CVA if we don't go for the BKs but we still owe them if we do go for the BKs? 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
der Berliner 3,321 Posted March 18, 2012 Share Posted March 18, 2012 Well, we do not know how these discussions between the BK and Ticketus went. I would be surprised if they would want "nothing" if TBK get the their deal done though. Of course, there is still a good possibility that other "bidders" may speak to Ticketus once the deal with them is examined. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
A Horse With No Name 0 Posted March 18, 2012 Share Posted March 18, 2012 The UNgallant Rangers I must say I find it very distasteful that more and more Rangers fans wanna shaft Ticketus. They paid money in good faith that was used to pay that £18 million (and do up the stadium etc) - it got those bastards Lloyds TSB off our backs. It seems to me that although he will be soon gone Whyte has left poor ethics behind within some the Rangers support. The reasons PM and the Blue Knights have included Ticketus are much more varied than just doing the 'right thing' - the reasons are very pragmatic and Ticketus won't be making much (if any) profit from that £24 m loan but will make some from banking services (etc) they'll provide us. But still we have some of our support sitting back smiling and (falsely) thinking here's a chance to basically steal those millions from that company! People are trying to undermine TBK's by their immorality, but it would be their immorality that could destroy Rangers as a VCA would be out of the question as Ticketus will delay the process effectively leaving us in Administration for many yrs to come, which would leave HMRC with the only reasonable tactic (from their POV) of pushing for Liquidation! I love Rangers FC passionately but sometimes the support leaves me wondering if they really want Liquidation just to save a few million. What's the old saying about gaining but losing you soul? Being a Commie I have no sympathy for companies like Ticketus losing money, the point seems to be lost on some Rangers fans that we will lose so much more... 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
GovanAllan 0 Posted March 18, 2012 Share Posted March 18, 2012 If Ticketus made a bad deal I don't see why we should bail them out. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
der Berliner 3,321 Posted March 18, 2012 Share Posted March 18, 2012 I'm pretty pragmatic here. Ticketus dealt with Whyte and Whyte alone. If they (both) screwed it up it is the duty of the administrators to get Rangers (the club) in the clear. You'd hope that Ticketus are business-people enough to know that they might have screwed this up. If their deal with us stands, no problem whatsoever. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
craig 5,199 Posted March 18, 2012 Share Posted March 18, 2012 So we would owe Ticketus nothing post-CVA if we don't go for the BKs but we still owe them if we do go for the BKs? Looks like it - I suspect that the BK's are trying to appeal to the other creditors as it gains them a higher pence in the pound return by excluding Ticketus. If it gets to a CVA "vote" then the creditors would probably prefer Ticketus are not part of the CVA as it maximises their own return. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Juancornetto 1 Posted March 18, 2012 Share Posted March 18, 2012 I'm a bit torn on this issue, on the one hand it's just plain wrong to shaft Ticketus and leave them with a £24m hole in their clients investments but on the other, they "bought" a product from somebody who at that point didn't own it. On top of that they speculated to nett a massive profit on this product to the tune of approx £36m (40,000 season tickets at £500 each every season for 3 seasons) and so could be accused of profiteering. When you look at it that way it's tempting to put it down to a bad investment and let them chase Whyte for it. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Dutchy Posted March 18, 2012 Share Posted March 18, 2012 Not only is it wrong to shaft Ticketus, but who in their right mind would deal with Rangers again if they were shafted. sometimes we need to look at the bigger picture. I don't think Ticketus were doing anything they've not been doing before, it's just the wee shit they were doing it with on this occasion. 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.