Blue Knights + Kennedy Joint Bid Submitted - Ticketus NOT in consortium

[GovanAllan 0]

Things seem to be moving along at a nice pace.

[chilledbear 16]

Brian Kennedy never wanted Ticketus involved.

 

Does this mean a joint bid right enough?

[Thinker 887]

Desperately trying not to get my hopes up again....

Nope, to late...

Their up.

I want to get off this roller coaster.

[Frankie 8,186]

Brian Kennedy never wanted Ticketus involved.

 

Does this mean a joint bid right enough?

 

Impossible to say. Ticketus could and probably will oppose a CVA meaning lengthy legal action.

 

Other factors possible such as FTT decision or different Ticketus strategy (such as making their own bid).

[Bluedell 5,356]

Ticketus could and probably will oppose a CVA meaning lengthy legal action.

 

Why will they do that? Do they think they will get more if we are liquidated?

[Frankie 8,186]

Why will they do that? Do they think they will get more if we are liquidated?

 

Depends on how sound they think their legal argument is against Whyte.

 

Clearly a lot happening today and it's impossible to do anything other than speculate.

[der Berliner 3,290]

There are a few things that do not really add up. D&P essentially got the "o.k." from the judge to rip the Ticketus deal up if it is in the best interest of the club/creditors. Whyte constantly claimed that the Ticketus deal was being done and secured against one of his companies, but not Rangers. Essentially, while Ticketus made a deal with the Rangers owner, apparently before the actual sale of the club and not being the owner of the club just yet, how is it that Ticketus could have any claim untowards Rangers? Ain't all their claims are essentially towards Whyte and/or the company who secured the deal?

[Bluedell 5,356]

There are a few things that do not really add up. D&P essentially got the "o.k." from the judge to rip the Ticketus deal up if it is in the best interest of the club/creditors. Whyte constantly claimed that the Ticketus deal was being done and secured against one of his companies, but not Rangers. Essentially, while Ticketus made a deal with the Rangers owner, apparently before the actual sale of the club and not being the owner of the club just yet, how is it that Ticketus could have any claim untowards Rangers? Ain't all their claims are essentially towards Whyte and/or the company who secured the deal?

 

The deal will have been signed post-takeover in the name of Rangers. The timeline as I see it is as follows:

 

1. Ticketus and Whyte reach a draft agreement pre-takeover.

2. Ticketus pay the cash into a C&B client account that Whyte can't access but can view and show as proof of funding

3. On the day of the purchase of the club the following will happen effectively at the same time:

- MIH agree to sell the club to Whyte

- Whyte is appointed director of Rangers

- Whyte signs the agreement with Ticketus in the name of Rangers

- Ticketus give C&B the OK to release the cash to Whyte

- Whyte pays the part of the cash over to LTSB to clear the loan.

[der Berliner 3,290]

He did state that the Ticketus deal is secured against one of his companies. Thus I wonder if the admins declare the deal none and void, will they hunt Rangers for their money or - given that they may want to deal with us in the future still with regards to ticket sales - go after Whyte?

[chilledbear 16]

Were Rangers one of his Companies when the agreement between CW and Ticketus was made.

 

I would guess this would be the crucial point.