chilledbear 16 Posted March 24, 2012 Share Posted March 24, 2012 The ruling yesterday seems to be getting some positive coverage in places. http://t.co/Bw31XfM8 Court ruling raises stakes in Rangers takeover fightMartin Williams Senior News Reporter.A BIDDING war is expected for control of Rangers after a court ruling left the door open for administrators to tear up the four-year season ticket deal. inShare.0 Custom byline text: MARTIN WILLIAMS Lord Hodge's opinion in the Court of Session leaves the way clear for Duff & Phelps to renege on the deal with Ticketus â?? which raised more than £20 million to finance Craig Whyte's takeover of Rangers â?? if it is in the interest of the creditors of the club. Lord Hodge said courts "would be slow to disrupt" the administration process by considering any legal move to force the Ticketus deal to be honoured. The administrators, who told Lord Hodge they believe the deal struck with Ticketus and Whyte is illegal, could get more money from the sale of Rangers, providing greater value for creditors such as the taxman, if there was no deal. Buyers are believed to have either stayed away from bidding, or devalued the Ibrox club because of the Ticketus deal, which gives the agency 60% of all ticket sales from Ibrox over the next four years, worth more than £30m. Lord Hodge's rulings will not just speed up the sale of the club, but could also bring in new bidders, the administrators believe. Former Rangers director Paul Murray's Blue Knights, Sale Sharks owner Brian Kennedy, Chicago-based Prometheus Capital Partners and an unidentified British consortium, have made conditional offers. A Middle East consortium, a Singapore group fronted by Glasgow-based businessman Shazad Bakhsh and New York-based financiers Fortress are understood to be keeping a watching brief. Paul Clark, joint administrator, said: "We welcome the decisions announced by Lord Hodge and view them as a significant step towards clarifying the future for Rangers Football Club. "Lord Hodge has made it clear the Ticketus arrangements do not mean Ticketus has property or real rights over seats at the stadium or, indeed, the proceeds from the sale of future season tickets." Duff & Phelps is now planning to create a shortlist of bids and said it expected the decision to have a "significant bearing on the proposals put forward by bidders to date". However, London-based Ticketus believes its bid for Rangers with the Blue Knights, which keeps the ticket deal intact, is in the "best interests of the club". It said: "With every week that passes, further value is destroyed in the club. To conclude the administration process as soon as possible so that the club can secure its future in the hands of a new owner is in everyone's interest. We feel confident that we can conclude this process more swiftly than other bidders. "Ticketus has a duty to its investors to protect the investment that it currently has in the club." If the administrators breach the deal, it is understood that the agency, while an unsecured creditor, would have to chase majority shareholder Craig Whyte for any losses. And, while Whyte believes he has preferred creditor status with first claim on assets such as Ibrox and Murray Park, the court-appointed administrators believe this is invalid because there is no evidence he put any of his money into the club. Court papers show the first confirmation that the administrators' legal advisers believe the Ticketus deal with Whyte is illegal on the grounds that it was indirectly providing financial assistance for the acquisition of Rangers shares, contrary to the Companies Act 2006. Lord Hodge was unable to give guidance on the immediate termination of the Ticketus contract because details of competing bids could not be divulged. However, his full opinion accepted the general principle that the deal could be breached in administration, and if the club is wound up. He also rejected a move by Ticketus to place a trust over the proceeds of the sale of the tickets, to try to make the deal unassailable, ruling that it had "purely personal contractual rights". 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Juancornetto 1 Posted March 24, 2012 Share Posted March 24, 2012 If Ticketus lose their cash I will laugh, they entered into a clearly dubious deal to make a massive profit and now it's gone tit's up. It's the high finance equivalent of responding to the Nigerian General Justice Mbokani and sending him an advance to get a share in £500m of "war funds". 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
CumbernauldGers 0 Posted March 24, 2012 Share Posted March 24, 2012 If Ticketus lose their cash I will laugh, they entered into a clearly dubious deal to make a massive profit and now it's gone tit's up. It's the high finance equivalent of responding to the Nigerian General Justice Mbokani and sending him an advance to get a share in £500m of "war funds".[/QUOTE] Hey i still expect my cheque in the post any day. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
der Berliner 3,363 Posted March 24, 2012 Share Posted March 24, 2012 The point remains that we know next to nothing bar their names about the other bids beyond the BK and Kennedy. That is, how much money they have available, how they want to continue with the club, what their future strategy is. Thus, we actually do not know whether one of the bids is already massively better than the rest. You do hope that no matter who it will be, the admins make sure that not only the best deal for the creditors is their main agenda. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craigy1881 79 Posted March 24, 2012 Share Posted March 24, 2012 Tell you what with ticketus coming out yesterday saying it is in the best interest of the club if it is sold now and the blue knights deal is the best it just reaks of them shitting themselves personally. Think they meant to add it is in their best interests if they sell to the bks. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Dutchy Posted March 24, 2012 Share Posted March 24, 2012 I don't think anything has been clarified, we just have all the protaganists boasting that they're the ones to take things forward. It's more likely that lawyers will be rubbing their hands at this decision. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
chilledbear 16 Posted March 24, 2012 Author Share Posted March 24, 2012 I don't think anything has been clarified, we just have all the protaganists boasting that they're the ones to take things forward. It's more likely that lawyers will be rubbing their hands at this decision. And Administrators, they must be making a killing. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Owain 0 Posted March 25, 2012 Share Posted March 25, 2012 One minute I think we've had it. The next minute I read something that implies we'll be ok. My heid is spinning and I'm lost here. Perhaps this should be a thread question, I don't know but...... If it looks like we can write off the ticketus debt, why can't we do the exact same thing with HMRC? Sorry if I sound a wee bit thick here but I'm not a business/financial guy. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Dutchy Posted March 25, 2012 Share Posted March 25, 2012 Admins: Rolling about inour money! We'll need a seperate fund to pay these bastards off. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
craig 5,199 Posted March 25, 2012 Share Posted March 25, 2012 Can you not just create a thread about how the admins are stealing our money. To see you post it in thread after thread after thread is tiresome. We get your point - but to see it in every thread, multiple times, about the administration is frustrating - and pretty pointless. 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.