Rangersitis 0 Posted July 27, 2014 Share Posted July 27, 2014 What's your source for that? Surely the fact that Ticketus pursued Whyte's personal guarantee doesn't preclude Ticketus from being a creditor? Given that he can't even get the name of the judge right, his source can't be up to much. Ticketus were named on the list of creditors to the tune of £26.7m. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ser Barristan Selmy 222 Posted July 27, 2014 Share Posted July 27, 2014 He as good as said it himself. Must be true then . 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RANGERRAB 3,254 Posted July 27, 2014 Share Posted July 27, 2014 Given that he can't even get the name of the judge right, his source can't be up to much. Ticketus were named on the list of creditors to the tune of £26.7m. My apologies. It was Lord Hodge who threw out ticketus' claim to be a creditor hence their pursuit of Whyte thro' the courts down south 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bluedell 5,329 Posted July 27, 2014 Share Posted July 27, 2014 My apologies. It was Lord Hodge who threw out ticketus' claim to be a creditor hence their pursuit of Whyte thro' the courts down south What's your source? On what grounds would their claim be thrown out given their contract was with Rangers? 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rangersitis 0 Posted July 27, 2014 Share Posted July 27, 2014 My apologies. It was Lord Hodge who threw out ticketus' claim to be a creditor hence their pursuit of Whyte thro' the courts down south You're still wrong about what the judge ruled on. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RANGERRAB 3,254 Posted July 27, 2014 Share Posted July 27, 2014 What's your source? On what grounds would their claim be thrown out given their contract was with Rangers? At the tail end of last year Whyte lost his appeal against Ticketus at the high court in London for 'fraudulent misrepresentation' and was ordered to pay Ticketus £17.6m. How could Ticketus have pursued both Whyte and Rangers oldco for the same debt? As I understand they were originally a creditor for £26.7m with their profit on the deal being £26.7m - £17.6m eqs £9m but chose to go after Whyte instead 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RANGERRAB 3,254 Posted July 27, 2014 Share Posted July 27, 2014 You're still wrong about what the judge ruled on. He declared the deal Whyte had with ticketus regards ST's to be null and void after administration 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rangersitis 0 Posted July 27, 2014 Share Posted July 27, 2014 He declared the deal Whyte had with ticketus regards ST's to be null and void after administration Nope. Keep digging. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
the gunslinger 3,366 Posted July 27, 2014 Share Posted July 27, 2014 Whyte is being perused as the guarantor. He's being perused because tickets as a creditor are only getting a few p in the pound. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
the gunslinger 3,366 Posted July 27, 2014 Share Posted July 27, 2014 All the judge declared was that tickets didn't own the seats as they claimed and as such were standard creditors. In their defence they voted for the CVA. 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.