Let's take a step back here for a minute.

[BrahimHemdani 1]

Thanks for the clarification. I guess it depends on whether it will have an impact on the payment of the other creditors. Presumably the cash paid to "buy the club" will go towards creditors. if subsequently Ticketus also get paid from other cash then the administrators should not have a problem.

 

If however it does impact the payment of creditors then, yes, you would have a point and there may be an issue.

 

Like everything else, it's just unclear. I get the feeling that the administrators' view of Ticketus changes on a daily basis.

 

I don't really see how any money paid to Ticketus would NOT impact other creditors but, as you say, it's as clear as mud.

 

As an aside, I have a problem with the involvement of one of the other (10?) BK's, not in a personal sense at all, but in connection with his everyday employment. I have written to the CEO of the company concerned and will consider posting the letter and any reply I receive before Friday. This doesn't really impact the bid itself.

[craig 5,199]

As you say this is an extremely "extreme" example. I see no reason why BK would offer significantly more than anyone else, on the contrary they might believe that there are reasons why they could offer less.

 

Come on guys, whilst it is an extreme example it clearly shows that there could easily be reasons to accept the offer despite them challenging the same entity.

[gisabeer 409]

If I understand this correctly the BK's justification for including Ticketus in the consortium is that:

 

1. We owe them £24M from season ticket sales over the next three seasons (and BTW how much of that is due at the end of this season/beginning of next?)

 

2. If they are included in the consortium it might be easier to do a deal with them, which presumably means repaying the £24M out of say 4/5 years ticket sales rather than 3 or from the share issue, directly or indirectly or getting some kind of goodwill reduction.

 

3. They will also be a source of an unspecified amount of money for working capital up front (repayment terms and interst unknown)

 

But at the same time according to the BBC "It has also emerged that Duff and Phelps are set to challenge the creditor status of finance firm Ticketus. A two-day hearing is set to get under way at the Court of Session on Thursday."

 

So if you were Duff and Phelps why would you accept a bid from a group that included a company whose creditor status you are about to challenge and whose part in the original purchase remains unclear? If you are there to protect the creditors and you don't believe Ticketus are a creditor are you not acting against the best interests of the remaining creditors if you accept a bid that means putting them in a positon where they might be able to recoup some part or all of the money that you do not believe they are owed?

 

Or am I missing something here?

 

i have been thinking the same thing. the bks involvement with ticketus i think will only prove to be hindrance were the administrators are concerned. they have tied a weight around their necks by associating themselves with them.

[craig 5,199]

Earth to Craig.... Earth calling Craig.... Come in.... Over.

 

Where is the GROAN button ? Talk about missing the point.

[Zappa 0]

Where is the GROAN button ? Talk about missing the point.

 

I didn't miss the point mate, but you could at least have put it accross with some semi-realistic numbers!!

[Owain 0]

i have been thinking the same thing. the bks involvement with ticketus i think will only prove to be hindrance were the administrators are concerned. they have tied a weight around their necks by associating themselves with them.

 

I am far from a businessman and have very little knowledge of the workings of such people so please excuse me if I am in error here.

 

But at £20 or so million, Ticketus seem to be our largest creditor. If we are to have any chance of coming out of this with a CVA do we not need them on board? Surely to include them in the negotiations for the bid would be in our (by "our" I mean the BK) interests?

 

If they are left feeling that their monies are secured at a much higher level than say a 10% of debt CVA, then that leaves us with HMRC as an isolated creditor that would have to endure a very difficult political situation if they were to force a winding up petition on our club.

 

It does seem to me that the Admin. are trying their best here to present a company that can very well survive, given a compromise between investment and a little sympathy from HMRC. After all, the HMRC want their money. A CVA will be no use to them but the potential to recoup monies owed in a reasonable time will attract at least some interest.

 

Personally I don't feel comfortable with the BK bid, mainly because of those involved and their histories plus the shambolic way they have handled the PR (amatuerish to say the least), but I can see why they have chosen to include Ticketus. It is the one thing that makes me think that the BK could maybe something verging on a realistic bid.

[Guest Dutchy]

D&P are trying to get Ticketus' claim as a creditor out of the picture. There's no guarentee that they will succeed.

 

And why are D&P, Craig Whytes preferred admins getting so much hero status. Are they really interested in Rangers future viability, or just enough to get paid?

 

They don't present a very competent firm thus far, or they may have old Rangers directors, i.e. CW to get in touch with the FSA before going into admin.

[Juancornetto 1]

The court hearing started today, it could have a major impact on the BK's and any other bid. I'm hoping that Ticketus are declared non creditor status and in which case they will have no choice but to either buy the club or sue Craig Whyte for their money back.

[Guest Dutchy]

Whether they're given creditor status or not, surely that won't end their involvement with the club?

[Bluedell 5,599]

I don't really see how any money paid to Ticketus would NOT impact other creditors but, as you say, it's as clear as mud..

 

I was assuming that it was possible that under the BK's scheme that Ticketus will get "paid" through future trading (and/or share issue) and it would not impact the CVA. I could be way off track though.