chilledbear 16 Posted March 23, 2012 Share Posted March 23, 2012 Administrators seem happy, whether we should be?? 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frankie 8,182 Posted March 23, 2012 Share Posted March 23, 2012 It's unclear but I think the fact the judge didn't make a decision (though did rule the admin could breach the contract with no court punishment) is good news. We didn't lose the case per se but neither did we win it really. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frankie 8,182 Posted March 23, 2012 Share Posted March 23, 2012 This post from FF sums it up well I'd say: 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. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Juancornetto 1 Posted March 23, 2012 Share Posted March 23, 2012 Glad I waited to come on here until after the fog has lifted. We didn't lose anything today, Duff and Phelps now feel that they are entitled to ignore Ticketus as anything more than a creditor. If Ticketis don;t hold any legal title to any property or future property then that is exactly what they are. Obviously that's not just going to be the end of it and there is the horror scenario of Ticketus wrapping us up in legal battles until we grind to a halt completely but it's in nobodies interest to do that. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zappa 0 Posted March 23, 2012 Share Posted March 23, 2012 Not quite sure what to make of the day's developments at the moment. At first glance it appears as though the administrators haven't made much progress. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bluebear54 0 Posted March 23, 2012 Share Posted March 23, 2012 What happens if HMRC end up being a larger creditor than Ticketus? Does that mean that HMRC call the shots about how many pennies in the pound? Also, if Ticketus end up being paid - say - 10p or 15p in the pound, because they have settled, does that mean their claim on future tickets has been settled? 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
forlanssister 3,050 Posted March 23, 2012 Share Posted March 23, 2012 What happens if HMRC end up being a larger creditor than Ticketus? Does that mean that HMRC call the shots about how many pennies in the pound? Also, if Ticketus end up being paid - say - 10p or 15p in the pound, because they have settled, does that mean their claim on future tickets has been settled? I imagine they will be bigger creditors than Ticketus anyone with at least 25% of the votes can scupper a CVA. If Ticketus accept a CVA then yes their claim will have been "settled". 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frankie 8,182 Posted March 23, 2012 Share Posted March 23, 2012 People I know who are close to the issue have said for week's now that HMRC will not oppose a CVA. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zappa 0 Posted March 23, 2012 Share Posted March 23, 2012 People I know who are close to the issue have said for week's now that HMRC will not oppose a CVA. It wouldn't make any sense for them to oppose a CVA before the result of the EBT case is revealed, but I doubt very much if any significant progress will be made on the CVA front by the administrators before the result of the EBT case anyway. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rbr 1,247 Posted March 23, 2012 Share Posted March 23, 2012 What we desperatly need now is the EBT verdict , either way , so that a CVA can either be agreed or else the ultimate action taken and a new Rangers formed from the ashes 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.