More details on the Blue Knight's bid

[craig 5,199]

Having £3b under your control doesn't make you worth £3b. It's not their £24m it belongs to the individuals who invested with them.

 

I may be wrong but I see Ticketus's involvement more as a damage limitation exercise as it's not really in their interests to see us liquidated, the big question is how much damage they're willing to take and also how much our fans see as being acceptable.

 

Our fans, at this point in time have no say in what is acceptable. Only the administrators do.

 

I didnt say they were worth 3 billion, somebody else did. I gave my opinion based on if a company were worth that much. You are quite right though, given these VCT's they are involved in, which is why I laugh when people suggest these companies are "worth X billion" - no they arent. They are worth the net of the assets AFTER paying out the deposits held on behalf of others, and that can be chicken feed sometimes.

 

Anyway, I suspect you are right about damage limitation, but it could very well be an even riskier policy to their investors. Craig Whyte apparently offered them security in one of his companies.... BK's it seems are offering PERSONAL guarantees.... but if they cant personally pay it then they will have to bankrupt themselves and Ticketus could be in the shit again !!

[calscot 0]

If my company was worth 3 billion and could be getting screwed out of 24 million I would think twice about going back in to be honest. Given it is worth 3 billion they could walk away, albeit with egg on thier faces.

 

That said, if they are looking at becoming a financing company... not a bad place to start as the "financing company that helped save Rangers"

 

But is part of the point that you have resources for a very long law suit with hardly affecting your business, while Rangers would be in turmoil for years? Again.

 

So they have a lot of leverage over us to force us to deal with them in a way where we can give them their money back with plenty of interest... If you can do that to recover your money with profit, then why not do it?

[calscot 0]

But they arent not just walking away from 24 million, it looks like they are increasing our potential liability to them.

 

"Good money after bad".

 

Sometimes you write a debt off BD, no matter how bitter the pill is to swallow.

 

But can you not sometimes throw a bit more in to save the original money? Sometimes it pays to do so.

[craig 5,199]

But can you not sometimes throw a bit more in to save the original money? Sometimes it pays to do so.

 

Dont disagree, but this doesnt look like it is a "bit more", looks like a lot more to me.

 

I am not saying I would do anything different by the way, just that I would be less inclined to go back in with RFC if they had already shafted me.

 

There are a ton of reasons why they may still be going with us. For all we know they may have agreed to forego the ST monies but so long as we use them as financiers at punitive interest rates.

 

I just personally would have serious doubts about going back to an entity that has just, and is still trying, to shaft me. BD is probably right though... which is why I am not rich !

[calscot 0]

Dont disagree, but this doesnt look like it is a "bit more", looks like a lot more to me.

 

I am not saying I would do anything different by the way, just that I would be less inclined to go back in with RFC if they had already shafted me.

 

There are a ton of reasons why they may still be going with us. For all we know they may have agreed to forego the ST monies but so long as we use them as financiers at punitive interest rates.

 

I just personally would have serious doubts about going back to an entity that has just, and is still trying, to shaft me. BD is probably right though... which is why I am not rich !

 

Don't disagree with any of that...

[forlanssister 3,114]

Our fans, at this point in time have no say in what is acceptable. Only the administrators do.

 

We do have a say in what's acceptable (though you are indeed correct re the present moment)because at some point down the line they're going to have to ask us to subscribe to a fundraising exercise of some sort or another most probably via a share issue of some type or other and as has been proved before if the Bears are not happy with the circumstances surrounding it then they will not participate in it.

[calscot 0]

We do have a say in what's acceptable (though you are indeed correct re the present moment)because at some point down the line they're going to have to ask us to subscribe to a fundraising exercise of some sort or another most probably via a share issue of some type or other and as has been proved before if the Bears are not happy with the circumstances surrounding it then they will not participate in it.

 

There doesn't need to be a share issue for fans to assert themselves - a boycott of season tickets would do it.

[forlanssister 3,114]

There doesn't need to be a share issue for fans to assert themselves - a boycott of season tickets would do it.

 

True .

[GovanAllan 0]

There doesn't need to be a share issue for fans to assert themselves - a boycott of season tickets would do it.

 

We can't organise a boycott of Dundee Utd somebody we all hate, can't see us getting a season ticket boycott of the ground.

[Guest Dutchy]

But they arent not just walking away from 24 million, it looks like they are increasing our potential liability to them.

 

"Good money after bad".

 

Sometimes you write a debt off BD, no matter how bitter the pill is to swallow.

 

Yes, but if there's a chance to safe that loss, surely you'd make an attempt to try. A liquidated Rangers is no good to them, but a surving Rangers, selling season tickets is more beneficial, so why not try it?

 

Of course, that £3 billion is most likely paper money and it would be crazy to walk away from £24 million, because then everyone would try it on if they did that.