Banking facility

[Bluedell 5,329]

1 hour ago, Uilleam said:

A different thing, surely? 

 

For one, it doesn't seem to me that Messrs Close Bros may be 'burned' in the way that the  great Whyte lamprey did for Ticketus. 

I'm referring to the finance that Ticketus supplied pre-Whyte, not the dodgy agreement they reached with him.

[forlanssister 3,050]

1 hour ago, Gonzo79 said:

This point:

"It’s a major backing for them from a major London banking institution. A gold star in their (the board's) direction from the city, we are once again trusted and seen as a viable business"

Was what I meant by the club being on a surer financial footing.  Hope that clears it up.  

They're just spinning the line in that blog, while there is nothing nefarious in the deal for the facility there's nothing to crow about either.

 

[Gonzo79 13,632]

I'm not suggesting there is.  

Seems just thinking things look okay is often taken as being boastful or overjoyed.  Not the same thing at all.  

[Uilleam 5,429]

39 minutes ago, Bluedell said:

I'm referring to the finance that Ticketus supplied pre-Whyte, not the dodgy agreement they reached with him.

I was  under the impression that it was a pretty standard agreement between Ticketus and Whyte, one used between it and any no. of Clubs.

The fact that Whyte used it to square Lloyds TSB was nothing to do with Ticketus. I have always thought that Whyte's arrangement was 'Financial Assistance', which I thought was a breach of The Companies Act (or whatever). I don't think that Ticketus was acting dodgily. 

 

Of course, Ticketus misunderstood Scots Law, which left them as just another pillaged creditor in the slime trail of Whyte. 

[forlanssister 3,050]

6 minutes ago, Uilleam said:

I was  under the impression that it was a pretty standard agreement between Ticketus and Whyte, one used between it and any no. of Clubs.

The fact that Whyte used it to square Lloyds TSB was nothing to do with Ticketus. I have always thought that Whyte's arrangement was 'Financial Assistance', which I thought was a breach of The Companies Act (or whatever). I don't think that Ticketus was acting dodgily. 

 

Of course, Ticketus misunderstood Scots Law, which left them as just another pillaged creditor in the slime trail of Whyte. 

I was in Court the day Ross Bryan from Ticketus gave evidence, it was clear that it was no ordinary Ticketus deal they were blinded by greed and ran a coach and horses through their own rules and internal controls. While Whyte played them it didn't take a great deal of effort in order to do so.

[Bluedell 5,329]

10 minutes ago, Uilleam said:

I was  under the impression that it was a pretty standard agreement between Ticketus and Whyte, one used between it and any no. of Clubs.

The fact that Whyte used it to square Lloyds TSB was nothing to do with Ticketus. I have always thought that Whyte's arrangement was 'Financial Assistance', which I thought was a breach of The Companies Act (or whatever). I don't think that Ticketus was acting dodgily. 

 

Of course, Ticketus misunderstood Scots Law, which left them as just another pillaged creditor in the slime trail of Whyte. 

Ticketus must have known that the cash that they were supplying was to be used to meet Whyte's obligation to pay off the bank. Whyte had committed that this would be funding from himself and they would have known that this breached this agreement.

 

They assisted in the shareholders being lied to, and if it was "Financial Assistance" (something that has never been clarified either way) then they were also in full knowledge of his actions and the law breaking.

 

There's no doubt that Ticketus acted immorally and got everything that they deserved.

[Uilleam 5,429]

5 minutes ago, forlanssister said:

I was in Court the day Ross Bryan from Ticketus gave evidence, it was clear that it was no ordinary Ticketus deal they were blinded by greed and ran a coach and horses through their own rules and internal controls. While Whyte played them it didn't take a great deal of effort in order to do so.

I'm happy to accept that Ticketus was at least a significant contributor to its own downfall, through greed and stupidity,  even though such characteristics are almost unheard of in the finance and financial services industry.

 

One interesting concomitant of the whole Whyte fiasco is that Ticketus is unlikely to countenance any future deal with Rangers. 

[T-1000 174]

1 hour ago, forlanssister said:

They're just spinning the line in that blog, while there is nothing nefarious in the deal for the facility there's nothing to crow about either.

 

Forlanssister, I agree with you on this but the fact we have been able to obtain this draw down facility does mean that in their (Close) opinion we are a reasonable credit risk.  if, however, we had been unable to obtain a credit facility that would be seen as a negative signal particularly if the club is considering making a share issue.

[forlanssister 3,050]

Just now, T-1000 said:

Forlanssister, I agree with you on this but the fact we have been able to obtain this draw down facility does mean that in their (Close) opinion we are a reasonable credit risk.  if, however, we had been unable to obtain a credit facility that would be seen as a negative signal particularly if the club is considering making a share issue.

Close Brothers are bottom feeders they'll deal with practically anyone for a fee, I would have had a more positive view had our bank (Metro) or any normal High Street bank offered us full banking facilities including an overdraft. Though I concede this facility may well assist in obtaining credit in the future.

 

[Uilleam 5,429]

6 minutes ago, Bluedell said:

Ticketus must have known that the cash that they were supplying was to be used to meet Whyte's obligation to pay off the bank. Whyte had committed that this would be funding from himself and they would have known that this breached this agreement.

 

They assisted in the shareholders being lied to, and if it was "Financial Assistance" (something that has never been clarified either way) then they were also in full knowledge of his actions and the law breaking.

 

There's no doubt that Ticketus acted immorally and got everything that they deserved.

I don't know how you can declare categorically that Ticketus knew precisely what Whyte was actually doing. It thought that it was extending monies (buying future tickets) with security. Add in the assurances and blandishments from Whyte's solicitors.

The most extraordinary thing about the relationship was the amount of dough involved. There were at least two tranches of 'future ticket sales', resulting in a debt of c£27M if memory serves, and that is where Ticketus' greed and stupidity  comes in. 

 

I am not sure that it matters in the great scheme of things, save that it probably makes the costs of money more expensive.