Six Questions for the Blue Knights

[forlanssister 3,083]

From the Scotsman

 

PAUL Murray has confirmed the identity of several members of his Blue Knights consortium which plans to take over Rangers and move the club out of administration: businessmen John Bennett, Scott Murdoch and Douglas Park.

 

But while the identity of his partners sheds new light on the development of the consortium, it is the link-up announced last week with Ticketus, the firm at the centre of a deal with Rangersâ?? biggest shareholder, Craig Whyte, that could carry the greatest significance.

 

Ticketus advanced Whyte £24million in exchange for the income from future season tickets. There is an argument about whether Rangers or Whyte himself are liable for that sum, with one body of opinion suggesting that the club may not owe the firm a penny.

 

Rather than go down that route of defying Ticketus, however, Murray has opted to take them on board as part of his business plan for the takeover of Rangers. In so doing, he aims not only to avoid costly and potentially lengthy legal action, but also to secure a sizeable percentage of the funding he needs for his takeover to proceed successfully. Under Murrayâ??s plan, Ticketus will play three different roles in the consortium.

 

First, it will provide some of the funding for the Blue Knightsâ?? purchase of Rangers. Second, it will ensure the new owners have enough cash to keep the business going until a share issue can generate new funds. And third, the terms of its season-ticket deal will be revised, to become less onerous to Rangers.

 

Murray has not specified the sum he and his colleagues are willing to pay for Rangers, or the amount which will be forwarded by Ticketus. But the London-based companyâ??s balance sheet will be a major asset in the bid. Similarly, administrators Duff & Phelps need to be convinced that any new owners will have enough money to fund Rangers as a going concern - and there, too, Ticketus have an obvious role to play. Those two aspects of Murrayâ??s plan are clear-cut, but the third is more arguable. If, as has been suggested, Ticketus may be due nothing from Rangers, why make a deal that could see the firm profit by several million pounds? The answer, quite simply, is that Murray thinks Rangers will also be the beneficiaries thanks to the overall deal. In other words, without being assured of getting at least some of their money back, Ticketus would be a whole lot less willing to go ahead with the first two parts of Murrayâ??s three-part plan. And without those first two parts, the plan would be a lot less likely to succeed.

 

Although they entered into the deal with Whyte in good faith, Ticketus have been tainted by association with the shareholder in the eyes of many Rangers supporters. Their involvement with Murray is a tangible sign of their goodwill towards the club, and should therefore repair at least some of that damage to their reputation.

 

For those supporters who remain extremely unhappy with Ticketus, the thought of not buying future season tickets could arise. But, according to football finance expert Neil Patey of Ernst & Young, such a course of action would only hurt the club.

 

â??If the agreement between Ticketus and Whyte were found to be legally binding on Rangers, supporters would not be able to exert pressure on Ticketus by declining to buy season tickets,â? Patey said yesterday. And the same thing would apply if and when Murray, on behalf of Rangers, concluded a deal with Ticketus which acknowledged liability. â??Rangers would still owe Ticketus exactly the same amount, and would simply have been denied a source of revenue to help repay that debt.â?

 

Another advantage of that agreement between Murray and Ticketus, as Patey pointed out, is that as potential joint owners of Rangers they would not be creditors under the terms of a Company Voluntary Arrangement (CVA), the vehicle required to take a business out of administration.

 

â??If Ticketus are owed money by Rangers. under a CVA they would waive their right to that money. If they were deemed to be creditors of Craig Whyteâ??s, they would have nothing to waive under a CVA.â?

 

With Ticketus out of the way as far as a CVA was concerned, HMRC would emerge as the major creditors whose agreement was required. This would be the case no matter the outcome of the first-tier tax tribunal which could land Rangers with a bill for £49m, as even if that tribunal finds in the clubâ??s favour, a bill for almost £15m arising from Whyteâ??s stewardship would remain to be dealt with.

 

â??The administrators would have to do a deal with the Revenue first,â? Patey added. â??You cannot have that potential debt hanging over the club. The administrators would have to bring HMRC on board and ask â??Do you sign up to the CVA or not?â?? If and when they reached agreement, they would then say to Paul Murray what the structure of the CVA was.â?

 

It would then be up to Murray and his colleagues to accept those terms or not. And with Ticketus on his side, he would be a lot more able to accept them

 

http://www.scotsman.com/sport/football/spl/rangers-administration-paul-murray-has-good-reason-to-join-forces-with-ticketus-1-2168802

 

Still need more meat on the bones re Ticketus imho.

[craig 5,199]

That Collyer Bristow money (reportedly £3.6m) doesn't belong to Rangers as far as we know. Unless I'm missing something, then that money is the remainder of the money Craig Whyte borrowed from Ticketus to complete the takeover of the club, so it stands to reason that it's not the club's money and that the club doesn't have a valid claim to it.

 

We dot know that, do we ? Ifit isnt the club's money, or we dont have reasonable claim to it, then the lawyers wouldnt be instructed to chase it, one would think

[Zappa 0]

Ifit isnt the club's money, or we dont have reasonable claim to it, then the lawyers wouldnt be instructed to chase it, one would think

 

Exactly, which is why I'm concerned about D&P.

[Zappa 0]

Ifit isnt the club's money, or we dont have reasonable claim to it, then the lawyers wouldnt be instructed to chase it, one would think

 

Exactly, which is why I'm concerned about D&P.

[BrahimHemdani 1]

Of course you are right - just a bit paranoid with what has gone on before! Maybe best to see the worse outlook, probably not!

 

Yes, I thought you must be joking but haven't seen enough of your posts to know!

[BrahimHemdani 1]

Is this confirmed by anyone other than Ellis ? because when he made that statement ther may have been truth to it, but it also seemed like someone trying to distance themselves as quickly as they could from a very sticky situation.

 

Ellis confirmed it to one of my contacts.

[BrahimHemdani 1]

Also, using insulting emotive terms against fellow posters is woeful in terms of debate - if that's what we can expect from you I'll be looking for the ignore button.

 

Absolute nonsense indeed!

 

OK I apologise, you are correct I shouldn't have used emotive language.

 

Unfortunately the person who passed me the info is terminally ill in hospital and I was thinking of him when I read your comments and got a bit emotional about it.

 

Sorry.

[craig 5,199]

Exactly, which is why I'm concerned about D&P.

 

With all due respect, they have been handling administration events far longer than any of us. They also have far better insight into what contracts were entered into and by whom, than either you or I.

 

You can have your concerns but you and I are working off pure conjecture. The administrators will not be running rough-shod over this as they have a fiduciary duty to the creditors (and shareholders indirectly) to ensure that they can obtain any and all monies that they can.

 

Question for you.... would you have the same response if the Ticketus deal went through the legal system and it was found that the contract WAS valid.... and we still hadnt chased the remaining 3.6 mill of that deal ?

 

Because, as things stand, we dont know if that deal was fraudulent or not, it hasnt been tested through the courts. So it stands to reason that they actually chase ALL money they can, even when there are two transactions that are contradictory to each other. They cant ignore one simply because they are chasing the larger one.

 

Maybe I am in the small minority, but I am comfortable with the job that Duff & Phelps have done as well as the timing that it has taken. It is NOT a small job and there is a balancing act that needs to be undertaken.

[Zappa 0]

The administrators will not be running rough-shod over this as they have a fiduciary duty to the creditors (and shareholders indirectly) to ensure that they can obtain any and all monies that they can.

 

So why have they been publicly stating that their No.1 concern is finding a buyer?

 

Question for you.... would you have the same response if the Ticketus deal went through the legal system and it was found that the contract WAS valid.... and we still hadnt chased the remaining 3.6 mill of that deal ?

 

If the Ticketus deal was proven (or deemed) to be valid, then the £3.6m would obviously be something that the administrators would chase, but things appear to have been done backwards or back to front if you know what I mean....

 

Because, as things stand, we dont know if that deal was fraudulent or not, it hasnt been tested through the courts. So it stands to reason that they actually chase ALL money they can, even when there are two transactions that are contradictory to each other. They cant ignore one simply because they are chasing the larger one.

 

Agreed, although as I've just said, the process seems to have been done backwards.

Edited March 13, 2012 by Zappa

[A Horse With No Name 0]

OK I apologise, you are correct I shouldn't have used emotive language.

 

Unfortunately the person who passed me the info is terminally ill in hospital and I was thinking of him when I read your comments and got a bit emotional about it.

 

Sorry.

 

Accepted. That kinda talks leads to more emotive stuff and before you know it we're all calling each other names etc - not helpful to open debate or encouraging others to participate.

 

To be honest I'm not sure why anyone would stand up for Ellis, The Mint clearly thought he was risky, therefore with him going in with Whyte so soon after that I'd say my opinion/conjecture is probably not that far from the truth....