BlueMazza 0 Posted March 19, 2012 Share Posted March 19, 2012 I'm not worried about who's shouting, or who's not. Why aren't the admins sorting out a sale as their are 3 interested bidders, at least. Sales of ANY business don't tend to happen in a few days! Let alone one quite as complex as ours. The admins don't know if we owe HMRC or Ticketus. We are going to be sanctioned by the SFA - Of course we will be. There is a lot of untangling to be done. The Admins also have a duty to only sell where the new owner will make the club prosper and ensure it pays it's debts. Finally there is the small issue of Whyte being 85% shareholder. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Dutchy Posted March 19, 2012 Share Posted March 19, 2012 What I have read that the admins are doing is chatting with Craig Whyte to give up his claims on Rangers' assets. He didn't say what the outcome was, other than to imply that things were looking good. That type of thing enrages me. A company having talks with the owner, and not telling the rest of the creditors the outcome. The trouble is, I don't know what they're up to, because they're not telling anyone. They do seem to like making comments against some, unnamed bidders, which I don't see the point of at all. The important thing is Rangers are brought out of admin, not making snide comments. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Dutchy Posted March 19, 2012 Share Posted March 19, 2012 The admins duty is to get the best deal for the creditors. Nothing more, nothhing less. I just think that as soon as the admins are out out of the picture, the better it will be for us as we'll stop leaking money to them. Simple really! 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlueMazza 0 Posted March 19, 2012 Share Posted March 19, 2012 The admins duty is to get the best deal for the creditors. Nothing more, nothhing less. I just think that as soon as the admins are out out of the picture, the better it will be for us as we'll stop leaking money to them. Simple really! I think we can all agree on that. I'm working on the assumption that they are doing a lot behind the scenes. Bear in mind there are a few ongoing court cases just now as well, they are spinning a lot of plates. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
forlanssister 3,060 Posted March 19, 2012 Share Posted March 19, 2012 From what i've been told, the whole thing with Ticketus is very messy as the money was given to Wavetower, not Rangers. Also, only £18m of the money went to pay Rangers debts to Lloyds so, that is all they can claim from Rangers. The rest is for Mr Whyte to deal with.I believe it would work whereby, if the BK's get the club, Ticketus relinquish their claim on Rangers and the CVA and the £18m owed to them becomes their investment/loan to the BK's. They would initially get £9m back with the other £9m being repaid over 5 years. This way, Ticketus get most of their money back as opposed to 10p in the pound in a CVA. It's a win-win for them. As I said, I have been told this. Personally, I don't see the benefit (maybe i'm missing something) as would it not be better to have Ticketus in the CVA and pay them between £1.8-£2.4m now rather than £18m over 5 years? I'm sure it will become clear soon In an ideal world we'd tell Ticketus to f*&k off but alas we're not living in an ideal world. As things stand Ticketus can block a CVA (present court action may change that) or tie us up for years in litigation. It may well be beneficial for both parties to work together but like you I think we certainly need more clarity before we can decide for ourselves. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
calscot 0 Posted March 19, 2012 Share Posted March 19, 2012 Ticketus will have to play ball somewhat as the last thing they want is liquidation. As I see it, if that happened they would be due nothing as they "don't lend money", they "buy up future tickets". They would own 75k of tickets for a company that no longer exists. They do, however, want to avoid being included in a CVA as they would only get a fraction of their money back. Personally I think it would be fair enough if they get £18M of their money back plus a normal rate of interest - the rest they can demand from whoever they gave the money to. That's all I think we owe them. I'd be happy for all other creditors to get their money back too - except for HMRC. I'd like us to pay this year's tax in full but bugger all of the EBT money. The bill for the latter just doesn't seem right - it's retrospectively collecting a tax from before the loophole was closed. They had ten years to close it and didn't - we went with the assumption that is was ok. If they had challenged it after a couple of years then fair enough - we could have paid up and then stopped. I can't even see how a debt from more than six years ago is not statute barred in any case. The whole thing smacks of entrapment. I think they need to admit their mistake and at worst, do a deal that is affordable to the club with maybe a wrap on the knuckles - say some kind of yellow card for future tax issues. So basically we need a bidder to offer a price which is just enough to make the club debt free - say £19M to Ticketus + say £10M to HMRC + say £3M to the other creditors = £32M. Sounds like a fair price to me. Then they could raise say £8M from the fans in a share issue to invest in the playing squad and give 20% equity in return. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
GovanAllan 0 Posted March 19, 2012 Share Posted March 19, 2012 Spot on Calscot I said last week to the mate 50Mill gets you Rangers debt free and good working capital to move forward. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest carter001 Posted March 20, 2012 Share Posted March 20, 2012 Spot on Calscot I said last week to the mate 50Mill gets you Rangers debt free and good working capital to move forward. I have been saying this to people for a while, who had been saying 'who would want buy Rangers just now?' My point was would Rangers be worth £30m if they were debt free and you own the assets - of course they would. So, where is the difference of buying them from adminstration for the same money, even if it is a little messy. I think this is the way Kennedy is thinking. Buy them now for £30m, steady the ship and sell it on for £??m debt free but, look like the saviour! 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Dutchy Posted March 20, 2012 Share Posted March 20, 2012 I think we can all agree on that. I'm working on the assumption that they are doing a lot behind the scenes. Bear in mind there are a few ongoing court cases just now as well, they are spinning a lot of plates. Yeah, yeah, of course. But court cases that are costing us a fortune and very little conclusions coming from them. Maybe they'll pay back the costs of going to court to have the administration back dated as they forgot to check it before stormng in. Just a thought. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darthter 542 Posted March 20, 2012 Share Posted March 20, 2012 Yeah, yeah, of course. But court cases that are costing us a fortune and very little conclusions coming from them. Maybe they'll pay back the costs of going to court to have the administration back dated as they forgot to check it before stormng in. Just a thought. My understanding was that it was the RFC Board that were @ fault since they didn't notify the FSA about going into Administration. D&P would not have known that RFC ran a credit scheme for a short time about 10yrs ago.....Craig Whyte might not have even known about it!!!! 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.