rbr

About 6 years in jail

There is still a lot of confusion with non online fans not sure which fund to put money too . On top of that there was yet another scheme appearing on ff the other night approved by the RST , surprise surprise , which was buy a pixel , some have already donated I believe there is another RFFF meeting tonight though

ok sorry guys if its shite

Dont know if this helps or just muddies the water's more . Rangers and Ticketus Posted on March 24, 2012 by loveandgarbage I am loath to add more to the blog posts, the web comments, the newspaper stories, and the television and radio reports on yesterday’s case of Clark and Whitehouse (administrators of Rangers FC plc) as applicants seeking directions from the court in the context of the agreement between Ticketus and Rangers but there are one or two points that are worth making. The deal between Rangers and Ticketus involves two transactions: a sale of rights to season tickets; and an agreement (on the premise that the sale was valid) appointing Rangers agents to sell the season tickets and to put the proceeds of sales into a ring-fenced account operated by Rangers for Ticketus. Under English law Ticketus - on paying Rangers on conclusion of the sale – would have a right in the seats the season tickets related to. This right would prevail over unsecured creditors (such as the taxman) in the insolvency of Rangers. This results from equity – a device of English law which appears to an outsider to be there to reward ineptitude. If you don’t do everything you’re meant to do equity steps in to protect you anyway with a shrug, and a “well you must have meant to do it so we’ll treat it as if you have done it”. The agreements between Rangers and Ticketus were written under English law and it appears Ticketus assumed that that was an end of things. The imperialist nature of English law assumes that its court orders and law can apply worldwide (see blog posts passim) – scant thought (if any) seems to have been given to one crucial factor. I appreciate this may come as news to some readers versed in english law, but Ibrox stadium is in Glasgow. And Glasgow is a city in Scotland. The seats in the stadium are by a remarkable coincidence also found in Scotland. Any debts that arise in relation to the season tickets arise in scotland. Now, scots law doesn’t have an odd system of equity which steps in to offer temporary protections. Scots law recognises two primary types of right: personal rights; and real rights. A personal right is in summary a right against a person allowing you to sue that person and is accompanied by an obligation on the part of that person. A typical example would arise from a contract. Consider, for example, a contract of loan. If I lend money to Ted, Ted has an obligation to pay me the money back, and I have a right to sue Ted for the money. Now, personal rights are only as strong as the person that owes the obligation. If I have a right to sue Ted, and Ted goes bust I am not necessarily going to get my money back. A personal right gives a creditor no entitlement to the debtor’s assets. It only gives the creditor a right to sue the debtor. And in insolvency that resolves itself into a right to claim in the insolvency of the debtor for the unpaid amount – along with every other punter who is owed money by the debtor. Personal rights can be compared with real rights. Real rights were created by roman law centuries ago. Real rights are rights in assets. Your ownership of an asset is a real right. But there are others. For example, in Scotland, a tenant holding under a lease has a real right. Or a creditor in a standard security (the technical Scottish term for what punters refer to as mortgages) has a real right. To explain that one, in the example above assume that I loaned Ted money but was worried that Ted wouldn’t pay me back. I could have said to Ted (as banks typically say to people borrowing substantial sums of money from them) – I will not lend you the money unless you give me a right in your house. This right in the house is a standard security. Now, how is that better than a personal right? Well a real right is a right in a specific asset. Thus, if Ted buggers off and sells his house I would still have the security in the house, whoever the new owner was. Additionally, the real rights have priority in the event of the insolvency of the debtor. So if Ted goes bust that has no impact on the real right. It remains as powerful as it was before. If that real right is a security (such as a standard security) the creditor typically has power to sell the asset without having to involve any other creditor, and if the asset is sold during insolvency the real right ensures that the creditor gets first cut when the proceeds of sale are divided out. In summry then being a right in an asset a real right is stronger than a personal right. Scotland, like much of western Europe, accepts real rights. The terminology seems unfamiliar in English law (although you see some commentators using it, it doesn’t seem to appear in the case reports – other than where a judge disparagingly queries how rudimentary the system is in comparison with the genius of English law, ignoring the fact that the bulk of western economies operate just such a rudimentary system which offers certainty and avoids superfluous litigation). However, Scotland only recognises a limited number of real rights. These real rights, funnily enough, don’t include rights held by season ticket holders on an irregular basis when football matches happen to take place. Much to the astonishment of no-one yesterday then Lord Hodge held that Ticketus do not have a real right in the seats. If they don’t have a real right at best they have a personal right – a contractual right to use the seat. This contractual right is pretty worthless if Rangers go into liquidation – because all that Ticketus will be left with is a claim for damages for what they have lost (ie the flipping great wadges of cash they paid on the assumption that English law solved all their problems). So with no rights in the seats themselves (which they magically would have had under English law) what did Ticketus get. Well they have bought season tickets that do not yet exist. Now there’s one problem with buying something that doesn’t exist. How do you get ownership of it? You can’t get ownership of it (at the earliest) until the thing exists. Ticketus then do not have ownership of any of the future season tickets that don’t exist yet. But what are these season tickets? – the season tickets are rights to occupy the seats exercisable against Rangers and these rights only arise when the season ticket is issued. Now in English law the magic of equity would appear to provide that the instant these tickets came into existence they would be immediately owned by Ticketus and the agency agreements would allow Rangsers to sell them. Trouble for Ticketus is that while they entered all of their agreements under English law we’re not in England. The season tickets arise under Scots law. And in Scots law there are difficulties (a) with selling future rights at all (because the sale of a right requires notification to the debtor to be effective, and we don’t know who the debtor is until the right exists; and (b) with creating trusts over future rights (which is what the agency agreement purports to do). You can only transfer an asset into the trust (and therefore validly create the trust) when the asset comes into existence. So Ticketus only have a contractual right against Rangers. This will give them only a claim in insolvency if Rangers go into liquidation. Now hidden away in an early part of Lord Hodge’s judgment is a suggestion that the agreement between Ticketus and Rangers might be struck down because under company law agreements are void if a company provides financial assistance in order to buy its own shares. However, this is a bit of a red herring to some extent. if the contract survives, and Rangers do not go into liquidation, then Rangers will have to implement that contract in future, or breach and risk liability in damages. If the contract is struck down then the money Ticketus paid will become immediately recoverable from Rangers because Rangers will have received money with no legal basis for receipt (in legal terms Rangers would be unjustifiably enriched). In the event of liquidation of Rangers whether or not the Ticketus contract is valid is completely irrelevant. (note) These are just some rough thoughts on the first half of the judgment. No doubt others will look at the first half and the second half in much more detail elsewhere. (note at 5.13 pm - after an interesting discussion on twitter with James Connolly, Glasgow Caledonian University, worth noting that where a contract is struck down for illegality there are issues about whether any claim can be made at all. Scots law on this is not as clear as it might be. The courts look at whether there is “turpitude” on the part of the parties. The nuances of unjustified enrichment, illegal contracts and the like are for another blog, or another day.

What we desperatly need now is the EBT verdict , either way , so that a CVA can either be agreed or else the ultimate action taken and a new Rangers formed from the ashes

Did anyone win , or did this just muddy the water's even more with Ticketus having no secured rights to these tickets

One small problem , we dont have any strikers

Is that not part of the problem we now have with CW , we didnt know anything about him , I suppose its over kill after that debacle

Everyone thinks that Rangers are some how shafting Ticketus , the fact that they were dealing with CW and concluded a deal a full 5 weeks prior to buying Rangers , and at that time of concluding their deal in full knowledge of the fact that he didnt own Rangers, Feck them its CW's problem not Rangers. Also for those that are stating why did Duff and Phelps go after the other £3.6 million , perhaps its because the money that was being frozen by the courts was used by HMRC to pay the VAT on the Ticketus deal

You really believe in the bigger picture that , to be the case , or did he listen to old Frankie bhoy and get a dream move within 3 weeks to the premiership

After the debacle of CW , I agree with BH , if there are any conflicts of interests we need to know now , not in 7 months or so , thats what got us into this mess

sorry dont go along with the "well done young Gregg " he could have stayed and taken the pay cut and fought for the team , but he took the selfish route IMHO , I realise I am in a minority of one but thats the way I see it. The sooner he realises his agent , Frankie bhoy is taking the piss the better , before its too late

Rangers administrators are taking Ticketus to court to seek permission to breach the £24.4m deal for season ticket sales struck by owner Craig Whyte. Duff and Phelps have raised the action at the Court of Session in Edinburgh, which is scheduled to last two days, starting on Thursday morning. The administrators believe are seeking legal permission to breach the deal for four years’ future season ticket sales. This action does not mean Duff and Phelps are questioning whether or not the agreement is legally binding, but the insolvency firm are seeking the court's approval to not pay Ticketus the money earned from season ticket sales until 2015. If the request for the breach is allowed, Ticketus would become creditors that the administrators would need to include in any company voluntary agreement needed to bring Rangers out of administration. The consequences of the court move could also have ramifications for the Blue Knights takeover consortium. The company is backing the bid fronted by ex-Rangers director Paul Murray, but should it become a creditor rather than a stakeholder at Rangers, its involvement in the consortium may change. STV revealed last week that the London firm, which is part of Octopus Investments, has repeatedly taken legal advice on the agreement and is confident it will withstand any legal action. It also believes its deal for future season ticket sales will still be in place should Rangers FC Plc go into liquidation. The firm, which has previously reached similar agreements with other football clubs, revealed last week that it had struck a deal for future season ticket sales with Rangers in 2009, when previous owner Sir David Murray was in charge. In an interview given to selected press journalists this week, Sir David claimed he had been "duped" by Mr Whyte and insisted he would not have sold the club to the businessman for a nominal £1 if he had known of the Ticketus deal. Mr Whyte used the £24.4m from Ticketus, which he received in exchange for around 100,000 season tickets at Ibrox until 2015, to clear the clubs £18m debt to Lloyds Banking Group, effectively funding his takeover of Rangers. Administrators Duff and Phelps previously stated the remainder of the Ticketus money had not touched the club’s accounts, while they have also said they were looking into the "validity" of Mr Whyte’s position as majority shareholder as he does not appear to have put any of his own funds into the club

According to reports by STV they are only asking the courts to let them breach the Ticketus agreement , where in they dont start paying it back till 2015 , this is getting even more confusing by the second

What kind of time is this to be taking family breaks ....... for gods sake Frankie PRIORITIES man

Cannot get my head around this at all , unless Ticketus have come to some amazing deal where they try and recoup their money in interest charges/finance etc , otherwise it makes absolutely no sense at all to me. However there may be a way that getting them onboard helps with a CVA , who knows

We still dont know the actual contractual situation with Ticketus , just because some are stating they are creditors doesnt mean they are , the administrators certainly dont believe them to be.

TomEnglish basically tweeted the same thing on sunday night , stating that many of his septic friends better strap themselves down if the info from Duff and Phelps was any where near correct

It was on talk sport , UEFA had asked the English FA to confirm exactly who would be in europe should Cardiff win , the answer that came back was that it would be Liverpool , they spent the whole morning discussing it , there was no mention of the English FA changing their rules , that was the week before I went skiing so would be the week of the 20th feb

What have the Romans ever done for us , oh matron my head

Today, 15:55 Soda Lug On The Bench Join Date: 28-02-2008 Posts: 279 Re: Is the Save Rangers campaign defunct now with the launch of the fighting fund? Quote: Originally Posted by rbr Anything that is left will be decidec by those in charge of the money , saverangers is not an officially recognised scheme , it is an RST schemem and should be closed until the new owners are in place , many posters are holding back as there is confusion between the schemes. At the RFFF meeting , Sandy Jardine and Jim Hannah both asked that the saverangers site be taken down , MD agreed it would , in front of witnesses Ooops better edit. You are wrong. #27 Today, 16:00 Laudrup1 http://tinyurl.com/mn8hrq Join Date: 28-07-2006 Location: On MILF Island Posts: 11,040 Re: Saverangers.com and Fan Fighting Fund – why both matter and need the right balanc Quote: Originally Posted by sgt steve mcgarrett Seriously do you expect Rangers to invite 473,394 individual fans and not act upon anything unless they get 473,394 fans to agree on something?! They invited all registerted supporters clubs to send 2 representatives. As sensible an approach as any I can think of. It'll get a cross section of dedicated fans. They backed the idea 100%. That's a powerful endorsement. Our club is in the shyt so is it just a little too much to ask for a positive backing of any initiative that will help us through these stormy waters rather than picking on nuance or minor detail etc ????!! Probably not, no. However, would it have not been easier (and more correct) to simply put everyone in attendance. It's no wonder people feel polarised from time to time when statements like that are made. When everyone is urging people to pull together, every effort should be made to ensure that no one should feel unaware / left out of what's going on. I'm on board with this 100% but I'll admit to having had no idea this was happening until I saw this thread and it utterly confused me after making my pledge to SaveRangers initially. #28 Today, 16:01 The_Purple_Standard Trialist Join Date: 16-02-2012 Posts: 14 Re: Is the Save Rangers campaign defunct now with the launch of the fighting fund? Quote: Originally Posted by craigie The Fighting Fund is to see the club through until it's sold. Any left goes in to the SaveRangers.com fund I think. 25/10 Will it? That's different from what was intimated at the meeting on Saturday, where it was said that the destination of any excess funds would be decided by RFFG Committee following consultation with the fans. #29 Today, 16:03 Grandmaster_Suck "A thin-skinned, chronically-offended, individual" Join Date: 06-03-2005 Location: The Disco Inferno Posts: 19,012 Re: Is the Save Rangers campaign defunct now with the launch of the fighting fund? Quote: Originally Posted by rbr Anything that is left will be decidec by those in charge of the money , saverangers is not an officially recognised scheme , it is an RST schemem and should be closed until the new owners are in place , many posters are holding back as there is confusion between the schemes. At the RFFF meeting , Sandy Jardine and Jim Hannah both asked that the saverangers site be taken down , MD agreed it would , in front of witnesses That's simply a lie. SaveRangers.com is endorsed a a means to identify interest in a share issue and the levels at which it should be pitched. Richard Cleary voiced the opinion SR should be closed but the meeting was told exactly what SaveRangers was about and that those signed up would be made aware of the Fighting Fund and how to contribute once it was launched. #30 Today, 16:04 rbr Gold Star Poster Join Date: 08-08-2006 Location: southside Posts: 2,563 Re: Is the Save Rangers campaign defunct now with the launch of the fighting fund? Quote: Originally Posted by Soda Lug Ooops better edit. You are wrong. Why should I edit , and no I am not wrong . Just to be clear I am a lifetime RST member , the saverangers scheme is a fine idea for when the club is safe and its future can be discussed in a positive vein , however at the moment there is still a massive threat and a great deal of uncertainty around the very existence of our club. Having two schemes , one called the RangersFansFightingFund and one asking for pledges called saverangers only confuses the issue , thats why it was asked of MD to take it down , he agreed in front of witness to do so , its very simple really. #31 Today, 16:04 Soda Lug On The Bench Join Date: 28-02-2008 Posts: 279 Re: Is the Save Rangers campaign defunct now with the launch of the fighting fund? Quote: Originally Posted by The_Purple_Standard Will it? That's different from what was intimated at the meeting on Saturday, where it was said that the destination of any excess funds would be decided by RFFG Committee following consultation with the fans. That is correct. #32 Today, 16:05 rbr Gold Star Poster Join Date: 08-08-2006 Location: southside Posts: 2,563 Re: Is the Save Rangers campaign defunct now with the launch of the fighting fund? Quote: Originally Posted by Grandmaster_Suck That's simply a lie. SaveRangers.com is endorsed a a means to identify interest in a share issue and the levels at which it should be pitched. Richard Cleary voiced the opinion SR should be closed but the meeting was told exactly what SaveRangers was about and that those signed up would be made aware of the Fighting Fund and how to contribute once it was launched. Are you stating on here that you were not asked in front of witnesses, that Sandy jardine and Jim Hannah asked you to take the saverangers site down. #33 Today, 16:07 The_Purple_Standard Trialist Join Date: 16-02-2012 Posts: 14 Re: Is the Save Rangers campaign defunct now with the launch of the fighting fund? Quote: Originally Posted by Soda Lug Ooops better edit. You are wrong. No he is not. Mark D took the microphone at request of Sandy Jardine and was asked if the SaveRangers campaign would take a back seat in favour of the RFFF as one supporter stated that it may cause confusion having the two running at the same time. Mark D then intimated to all that the SaveRangers campaign would be suspended.

FRom someone at the RFFF meeting ... Mark D took the microphone at request of Sandy Jardine and was asked if the SaveRangers campaign would take a back seat in favour of the RFFF as one supporter stated that it may cause confusion having the two running at the same time. Mark D then intimated to all that the SaveRangers campaign would be suspended.

The way it looks we,the fans will be paying twice for the same thing , once to get rid of lloyds via Whyte and then again to get rid of Ticketus via Murray , nice one guys

Date the ban will be lifted: Never HAHA , just had a life ban for daring to argue with MD on ff , he is a liar nothing more ......

Well they must have done it in the last few weeks then Cal , as it was clearly stated that even if Cardiff won they wouldnt be in Europe , but I may be wrong on this