the gunslinger 3,366 Posted July 13, 2012 Share Posted July 13, 2012 No they didn't. They claimed that they were owed future income. Sorry but I don't understand what you are asking here. I'm just pointing out that ticketus may be less than scrupulous. I seem to remember you pointing out to me befor that they knew exactly what was going on when they gave whyte the money. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
CumbernauldGers 0 Posted July 13, 2012 Author Share Posted July 13, 2012 Whether King is correct or not, Ticketus are not going to just give up on £20m, and there is no chance of them getting from Whyte. Going away for a few days, so behave yourselves. I hate this stuff. These type of stories are all based on the fact that people keep saying Ticketus will not just give up £20m, well i'm sorry the oldco Rangers will be liquadated so they will have to. People like King just dont seem to understand that the same laws that apply to every company also apply to Rangers. Total rubish story. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
calscot 0 Posted July 13, 2012 Share Posted July 13, 2012 Could Ticketus legally be behind a buy out of the assets of a liquidated company where they are creditors? Sounds feasible. They can't ask the newco for repayment of debt but they can probably buy the assets for a newco on the open market and sell the company for a profit and recoup their losses that way... 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
the gunslinger 3,366 Posted July 13, 2012 Share Posted July 13, 2012 I hate this stuff. These type of stories are all based on the fact that people keep saying Ticketus will not just give up £20m, well i'm sorry the oldco Rangers will be liquadated so they will have to. People like King just dont seem to understand that the same laws that apply to every company also apply to Rangers. Total rubish story. laws like the one against borrowing money from a company to buy the company? 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
CumbernauldGers 0 Posted July 13, 2012 Author Share Posted July 13, 2012 laws like the one against borrowing money from a company to buy the company? Question's for you, do you really belive that Ticketus own the Rangers assets? Do you really think any company would do this with the heat and media on Rangers at the moment? 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
the gunslinger 3,366 Posted July 13, 2012 Share Posted July 13, 2012 Question's for you, do you really belive that Ticketus own the Rangers assets? Do you really think any company would do this with the heat and media on Rangers at the moment? I am sure ticketus were involved in the con job that got whyte ownership of us and knew fine well he was using their cash to buy us. would this be much different? 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
CumbernauldGers 0 Posted July 13, 2012 Author Share Posted July 13, 2012 I am sure ticketus were involved in the con job that got whyte ownership of us and knew fine well he was using their cash to buy us. would this be much different? The whole CW ticketus thing could well be correct, he could have just conned them also. But i'm sorry unless somebody produces some sort of evidence about this then i dont belive a word of it. And this this would be a hell of alot fifferent, they would getting involved in something that if true could be exposed in minutes. Total pish from the media from me. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
the gunslinger 3,366 Posted July 13, 2012 Share Posted July 13, 2012 another thing we know is ticketus offered tbk a ten million interest free loan and a ten million overdraft. is it that wild an idea that for 5.5 they just bought us. or for 2.5 they bought the stadium and Murray park. I would like proof as well to rule it out but it could be to late by the time we see proof. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bluedell 5,354 Posted July 13, 2012 Share Posted July 13, 2012 (edited) I would much prefer the directors of the club concentrate on running the club than having to disprove every new wild theory that is produced on an almost daily basis. What's next? Prove that Peter Lawwell does not own 23% of the club? Prove that our season ticket money is not going to be donated to the SNP's independence fund? Prove that Ibrox is not going to host a Susan Boyle concert? Where does it end? One thing I can predict is that there will be a whole host of new theories after the meeting on Sunday. If people have theories then come up with the slightest bit of evidence, or else STFU! Edited July 13, 2012 by Bluedell 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darthter 542 Posted July 13, 2012 Share Posted July 13, 2012 Prove that Ibrox is not going to host a Susan Boyle concert? You took that too far!!!! 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.