RANGERRAB

Ticketus are ordinary creditors same as debenture holders, the guy that runs the paper shop, the guy that printed the programmes etc, etc, no more, no less.

 

Lord Hodge awarded them f*&k all.

 

The reason they are going after Whyte as already pointed out to you is that he gave a personal guarantee that's totally irrelevant with regards to anything Lord Hodge did or said.

OK understand. I'd thought because they'd pursued Whyte they'd relinquished their rights as creditors(unsecured)?

But are there not two very pertinent questions regards Ticketus

1) why did they give Whyte so much unsecured credit?

2) did they have no idea of Whyte's dubious business background? On the day he got Rangers just about everyone else seemed to know I.e. Jeff Randall, Alistair Johnston, Paul Murray etc. Did they think it wise to lend to such an individual?

They thought they were secured creditors but Lord Hodge effectively said they were merely ordinary creditors, whatever way you want to dress it up they're creditors of RFC plc.

Agree but as unsecured creditors didn't that effectively mean they'd have got nothing? Lord hodge awarded them personal contractual rights and did not not mean they could go after Whyte which they did thro the courts down south

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.

They didn't own the seats.They thought they did but Lord Hodge ruled otherwise under Scots Law.

They were awarded personal contractual rights by Lord Hodge hence their pursuit of Whyte

You have repeatedly shown that you have no understanding of the most basic of facts.

How? Explain?

Let's be honest here, Collyer Bristow were also shafted by Whyte and Withey.

Unprofessional & negligent I'd say.

Nope were suing for the loss of p Murray money

Astonishing.......

We are suing for the loss of p Murray money

???? I thought they were suing on behalf of creditors and for the exorbitant fees of D&P and BDO. CB were negligent in allowing Whyte to acquire Rangers hence they were sued

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

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

The court seem to disagree.

I'd be more inclined to say the court consider CB to have been extremely negligent in not appearing to have researched Whyte and his source of funding which he used to acquire Rangers not to mention the legal aspects of this bid.

Not quite sure how this involves PM though.

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

The whole basis of the case was that rangers would not have failed if p Murray bought us.

I remember him bidding at the time but always thought he'd left it too late i.e. the deal with Whyte had already been done.

He's the reason we were able to sue collier Bristow for 24 million.

How was that? Please explain

Both Malcolm and Paul, more so Paul, are in touch with King.

They can be in touch with DK all they like but until they get themselves a substantial shareholding or persuade enough of the current shareholders to elect them instead of the current board they will have no part to play in Rangers.

The big question now for the UoF,SoS,DK etc is where do they go from here? Their ST idea hasn't worked.

They can say what they like about the current regime but they hold the power and will continue to do so.

I don't suppose it's ever occurred to the UoF,SOS, DK etc that the current regime might actually want Rangers to be successful again at home and abroad?

As I understand it, it was the newco argument primarily if not wholly and I don't know the facts of the Hibs case so I won't argue with you. I don't think you will get very far with the players argument because they were legally entitled to walk away from newco but I agree that some of the lost revenue is another matter.

Hibz got transferred from Forth Holdings to Farmer's newco. It's listed in wikipedia.

My arguement regards the players was that the oldco was never insolvent (the BTC victorys and not owing ticketus anything). A newco need never have been created. Whoever was responsible for the newco needing to be created should be pursued the costs of the fees lost for the players who left. HMRC?

Perhaps the board now consider DK as an irrelevance. Perfectly understandable given his strategy(or lack of it)

Not arguing with any of that but those are not the reasons we had to go to the SFL.

What were the reasons then? The oldco/newco is not an arguement. Hibz did that in 1991 when their old parent company went bust and Farmer transferred the club to his newco.

I maintain all along it was deliberate lies aimed at destroying Rangers and the clubs voted accordingly It is now time for retribution. The board must seek damages for lost revenues and also players who walked away denying the club transfer fees

What information do you regard as "deliberately inaccurate"? The fact that we have been exonerated in the BTC doesn't mean it wasn't accurate information at the time. I have said in another thread that I think there is a possibility that we might recover some TV & prize money but obviously not transfer fees that were due, albeit by oldco, because you can't expect the Clubs to repay that. Also our playing in the 2nd, 3rd and 4th tiers has indeed cost us money but perhaps not as much as might be thought as ST numbers and attendances were high for the last two seasons at least albeit at lower prices. And what of the Clubs in the lower reaches who have benefited; the corollary of us getting money back would be that they would lose money. Are they to unbuild the new terraces etc that they have put up? Of course we lost sponsorhsip and European money etc but how would you quantify that?

 

 

The big issue would be the cost effectiveness of any such action; care would need to be taken to ensure that the lawyers weren't the biggest earners.

 

Negotiation seems the best way forward to me.

Oh come on BH every man and his dog in this country had Rangers guilty of anything and everything and we had to accept our 'punishment' for this. Now the BTC is almost over(does anyone think HMRC will win this now?) the case against Rangers has all but collapsed.And there hasn't even been the hint of a suggestion of an apology from these ten clubs or Rhegan's SFA to say they got it wrong. Badly wrong IMO.

The information these ten clubs based their decision on was nothing more than deliberate false speculation from the east end. Rangers were guilty of 'cheating' and 'playing players we couldn't otherwise afford' by cheating the tax. Who can forget Michael Kelly screaming down a mic on BBC news night he wanted titles stripped?

Remember too KIllie abstained from this vote. a wise decision now methinks

From inside

By what means?

I read this morning McCoist wants to sign 'an attacking midfielder'. Haven't we already got Law and McLeod(if he gets played in his best position middle-to-front and not defensive MF). Would we not be better off trying to get a bit of creativity in MF ?

Last season our MF was slow and predictable with little or no flair or creativity. How will that change next season?

I understand that point of view completely and it is one that is held by a great many people, although the Clubs voted based on what was in front of them at the time.

 

Nonetheless, my feeling is that we will be playing them again in the not too distant future (and some next season!) and that we need to move on. I will visit those Club's grounds whenever I can get a ticket becasuse I put supporting the team ahead of any feelings of ill will towards them.

Is it not now proven to be the case these 10 clubs took a decision based on deliberately inaccurate information aimed at causing the maximum possible damage to Rangers? The decision to eject Rangers from the top division has cost Rangers well into tens of millions of pounds in lost revenue. Will the board make any attempt to recover that lost revenue from either these ten clubs or the SFA itself who should have taken any such decision?

What date is it?

McCalls cup record is horrendous, that counts against him, for me. There is a serious issue with him and cup ties as a manager.

Our next manager must come from outside of Scotland.Frankly there is no one in this country I can say whom I believe is an ideal candidate to replace Ally(hopefully sooner rather than later)

I am proud to be Scottish as well as proud to be from Glasgow and a Rangers fan. I have amended the OP accordingly.

 

Obviously you are entitled to your opinion, no doubt shared by many; personally I take no pride in the failings of any of Scotland's teams in Europe.

Normally I'd have said the same but the summer of 2012 changed everything for me. The 10 clubs who voted Rangers out the top division now need to be asked why they took that decision. Until they come out & explain their decision I shall fervently hope they lose every game they play in such as these. The collapse of the BTC means the only feeble reason they had was the newco nonsense which holds no water as Hibz did the same thing in 1991 and weren't voted out.