Zappa 0 Posted February 15, 2012 Share Posted February 15, 2012 Don't forget Wulstan. And Brendan... 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
craig 5,199 Posted February 15, 2012 Share Posted February 15, 2012 Shit if I'd looked up my own stuff could have saved myself some time:facepalm: Maybe I am missing something here forlans but that doesnt look to me like Close Leasing will rank higher than Craig Whyte. And I definitely COULD be mistaken. Hear me out.... It looks suspiciously to me as if this is, effectively, 2 declarations within one. The first page is Bank of Scotland assigning. Any and all charges that they had over RFC Plc (Murray's company) to Craig Whyte's Company (Group Ltd) over "the whole assets of the company). The 2nd piece looks to me like Whyte's company (Group Ltd) are making an assignation to Close Leasing for the catering services. Looks to me (again, I reiterate, I could be wrong). That Whyte's company are merely re-assigning the security from the catering contract from Azure to Close (if not the contract itself then the terms of the contract) Please tell me I am right..... Because if Craig Whyte has assigned the whole assets of the company for the sake of a catering contract then we really are in the shit !!. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrahimHemdani 1 Posted February 15, 2012 Share Posted February 15, 2012 Maybe I am missing something here forlans but that doesnt look to me like Close Leasing will rank higher than Craig Whyte. And I definitely COULD be mistaken. Hear me out.... It looks suspiciously to me as if this is, effectively, 2 declarations within one. The first page is Bank of Scotland assigning. Any and all charges that they had over RFC Plc (Murray's company) to Craig Whyte's Company (Group Ltd) over "the whole assets of the company). The 2nd piece looks to me like Whyte's company (Group Ltd) are making an assignation to Close Leasing for the catering services. Looks to me (again, I reiterate, I could be wrong). That Whyte's company are merely re-assigning the security from the catering contract from Azure to Close (if not the contract itself then the terms of the contract) Please tell me I am right..... Because if Craig Whyte has assigned the whole assets of the company for the sake of a catering contract then we really are in the shit !!. That sounds right to me Craig. CW/Wavetower/whatever has a charge/is secured on Ibrox Stadium, Murray Park, the lease for the Albion etc in respect of the debt of £18M used to pay off LBG (whether it came from Ticketus or wherever) Ticketus are secured on the next three seasons season ticket money for £24M (or £20M or whatever large sum of money). Close Bros are secured on the catering sales for money that was used to refurbish the concourses etc (£1.4M-£1.7M) The Bond/Debenture Holders are next in line but won't get anything. HMRC are next. Then other creditors who might include season ticket holders (although it's hard to see the Administrators going down that route). Am I correct? 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zappa 0 Posted February 15, 2012 Share Posted February 15, 2012 I think you're right Craig! 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zappa 0 Posted February 15, 2012 Share Posted February 15, 2012 Then other creditors who might include season ticket holders (although it's hard to see the Administrators going down that route). Am I correct? We still owe money for players and there's going to be a large number of other smaller debts too. For example, Terry Butcher mentioned on Sportsound that Rangers still owe ICT money and I'm pretty sure that we'll still be due money (presumably for tickets) to other SPL clubs. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
forlanssister 3,114 Posted February 15, 2012 Author Share Posted February 15, 2012 Maybe I am missing something here forlans but that doesnt look to me like Close Leasing will rank higher than Craig Whyte. And I definitely COULD be mistaken. Hear me out.... It looks suspiciously to me as if this is, effectively, 2 declarations within one. The first page is Bank of Scotland assigning. Any and all charges that they had over RFC Plc (Murray's company) to Craig Whyte's Company (Group Ltd) over "the whole assets of the company). The 2nd piece looks to me like Whyte's company (Group Ltd) are making an assignation to Close Leasing for the catering services. Looks to me (again, I reiterate, I could be wrong). That Whyte's company are merely re-assigning the security from the catering contract from Azure to Close (if not the contract itself then the terms of the contract) Please tell me I am right..... Because if Craig Whyte has assigned the whole assets of the company for the sake of a catering contract then we really are in the shit !!. They are agreeing to Close's fixed charge ranking in priority the Groups floating charge are they not? 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
craig 5,199 Posted February 15, 2012 Share Posted February 15, 2012 That sounds right to me Craig. CW/Wavetower/whatever has a charge/is secured on Ibrox Stadium, Murray Park, the lease for the Albion etc in respect of the debt of £18M used to pay off LBG (whether it came from Ticketus or wherever) Ticketus are secured on the next three seasons season ticket money for £24M (or £20M or whatever large sum of money). Close Bros are secured on the catering sales for money that was used to refurbish the concourses etc (£1.4M-£1.7M) The Bond/Debenture Holders are next in line but won't get anything. HMRC are next. Then other creditors who might include season ticket holders (although it's hard to see the Administrators going down that route). Am I correct? Yes, that sounds about right to me. The debenture holders are likely to rank higher than HMRC. HMRC, in fact, will rank pari passu (equal to) the ST holders. Undecured creditors rank almost at the bottom of the food chain, only higher than the ordinary shareholders. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
craig 5,199 Posted February 15, 2012 Share Posted February 15, 2012 We still owe money for players and there's going to be a large number of other smaller debts too. For example, Terry Butcher mentioned on Sportsound that Rangers still owe ICT money and I'm pretty sure that we'll still be due money (presumably for tickets) to other SPL clubs. ICT will rank no higher than ST holders I would think. They are, just like HMRC, unsecured. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zappa 0 Posted February 15, 2012 Share Posted February 15, 2012 ICT will rank no higher than ST holders I would think. They are, just like HMRC, unsecured. You'd see that I know that already if you looked at what I quoted.... 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
craig 5,199 Posted February 15, 2012 Share Posted February 15, 2012 They are agreeing to Close's fixed charge ranking in priority the Groups floating charge are they not? Yes, I agree that you are right. First off, I am by no means an expert - but even though they ran higher than the floating charge it will surely only be to the extent of the liability of the fixed charge. How much was the refurbishment of the concourse costing - I thin it was Bears who mentioned a figure of 1.7 million. If Whyte has a floating charge to the extent of 30 million (not unreasonable) then he still holds more than 75% of the creditors, which will still allow him to push the CVA. The fixed charge raning higher than the floating is, as far as I am aware, only to the extent of the liability due, not in terms of being a "lead creditor" in the event of administration. All that was happening here is that Close Leasing were ensuring 1st bite at the administration cherry. I think 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.