Bears 0 Posted March 23, 2012 Share Posted March 23, 2012 (edited) This post from FF sums up the situation rather well IMHO: I am a solicitor. I have no particular knowledge of or specialism in this area of law. I have however just read Lord Hodge's full judgment from start to finish. I am going to try to summarise the key points below, but don't take this as gospel - my understanding of the principles involved is probably a bit better than average but not much better... 1. The judge disagrees with Ticketus' previous statement that they own the tickets for future seasons. This is what he means when he says they have no real rights. The word real in this context doesn't have its normal meaning - it means a right in property. Instead, Ticketus only have a contractual right to the proceeds of season ticket sales. 2. The administrators initially asked if they could be given permission to rip up the contract with Ticketus. The judge said he couldn't make that decision without more information about the four bids for the club. It would be unfair to the other three bidders if Ticketus got the details of their bids and this would be unavoidable if the judge was given this information as part of the court case. 3. (And this is the complicated bit) The judge gave some guidance as to the circumstances in which the administrators could default on the contract with Ticketus. Firstly, he made it clear that normally, an administrator of an insolvent company will be able to default on a contract in this way. However, he went on to say that this might not be the case if to do so was particularly unfair on one creditor. So there is some comfort for both sides in this. The administrators will know that they might be able to default on the Ticketus deal if that's in the best interests of the creditors overall. However, Ticketus will feel that if this happens, they will suffer ten times worse than any other creditor and that might give them a basis to go back to court to try to have the season ticket contract enforced. So what does this mean overall? These would be my educated guesses: 1. The administrators will be taking urgent advice from their lawyers on how strong their position is in light of this ruling. If their lawyers give them confidence that the Ticketus deal is unlikely to be enforced by the court, they might try to pressure Ticketus into settling this debt under the CVA (i.e., so many pence in the pound). 2. Ticketus will also be taking urgent advice on the likelihood of the court ordering Rangers to honour the season ticket contract if the administrators refuse to do so. However, I don't think there is much Ticketus can do to pre-empt the situation. They will have to wait to see what the administrators decide before considering their next legal move. 3. If it's true that the likes of Brian Kennedy will only stay in play if the Ticketus deal was ripped up, then he now has a big decision to make. It looks to me that it's probably more likely than not that the court won't uphold the Ticketus deal if Rangers default on it. But will his lawyers give him sufficient reassurance on that to convince him to keep going? 4. The Blue Knights bid still has the huge advantage of certainty. It's the only bid that can be sure of not being tied up in lengthy and costly litigation with Ticketus. 5. No-one has won outright, no-one has lost outright but on balance I'd say the outcome of today's case was slightly better for the administrators than for Ticketus. Edited March 23, 2012 by Zappa 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bluebear54 0 Posted March 23, 2012 Share Posted March 23, 2012 What was the ruling? Are they creditors? Or do they own assets? Does this mean only the BK bid will happen? What then of CW? 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
chilledbear 16 Posted March 23, 2012 Share Posted March 23, 2012 Judge also declined to give ticketus preferential treatment as #rangers creditors. They will have to join the queue like everybody else. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnnyk 158 Posted March 23, 2012 Share Posted March 23, 2012 David Cowan@stvdavidc Judge has declined to give #rangers administrators legal guidance on how they could terminate the ticketus contract. So deal still stands. David Cowan@stvdavidcReply Judge also declined to give ticketus preferential treatment as #rangers creditors. They will have to join the queue like everybody else. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darthter 542 Posted March 23, 2012 Share Posted March 23, 2012 From STV here: A judge has refused an attempt by Rangers administrators to gain legal guidance on whether they could breach a £24.4m season ticket deal. Duff and Phelps had sought directions from the Court of Session over whether they could renege on the agreement and not pay Ticketus the proceeds of sales. At the Court of Session on Friday Lord Hodge returned his decision on the move by the insolvency firm, stating that he would not give them guidance on what could be done in this case. However, the judge declined to grant Ticketus preferential creditor status as Rangers seek to exit administration under a creditor voluntary agreement. Rangers owner Craig Whyte sold off 100,000 season tickets at Ibrox until 2015 for £24.4m which effectively funded his takeover as he used part of the cash to wipe off the clubâ??s £18m debt to Lloyds Banking Group. Duff and Phelps had claimed that the deal would hamper their attempts to sell the club. The administrators QC David Sellar had claimed in court that two of the four indicative bids for the club were dependent on the Ticketus deal being breached. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlueMazza 0 Posted March 23, 2012 Share Posted March 23, 2012 The timothy's are going NUTS about this. Half of them saying Liquidation is THE ONLY WAY. LOL. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darthter 542 Posted March 23, 2012 Share Posted March 23, 2012 Lord Hodge returned his decision on the move by the insolvency firm, stating that he would not give them guidance on what could be done in this case. My reading of this is that the Judge has not said they can't get out of it....just that he won't give them any guidance on how to do it!!! 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
der Berliner 3,716 Posted March 23, 2012 Share Posted March 23, 2012 Well, now it depends on how the admins get on with Ticketus and the bidders with regards to a CVA. As far as I am aware, Kennedy can simpy talk to Ticketus and leave their deal as it is, but would have to come up with the money for the 60% or whatever Ticketus gets from the ticket sales. For that money was used to clear the Llyods debt ... which would have to be cleared anyways by someone. What then remains is the HMRC stuff to be placed in a CVA and someone getting hold on Whyte and shake him so that he releases any hold on our club for good. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlueMazza 0 Posted March 23, 2012 Share Posted March 23, 2012 My reading of this is that the Judge has not said they can't get out of it....just that he won't give them any guidance on how to do it!!! Yes. Essentially it would probably involve a lengthy and costly court case, so whilst we haven't "lost" as is being reported, we most likely can't take it further due to finances. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
der Berliner 3,716 Posted March 23, 2012 Share Posted March 23, 2012 The timothy's are going NUTS about this. Half of them saying Liquidation is THE ONLY WAY. LOL. More of a slight case of suffering from the symptoms of verbal diarrhea. Nothing unusal beyond the Clyde ... 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.