TBK & Ticketus

[chilledbear 16]

Interesting developments with TBK, also the info from Frankie about the Singapore bid.

 

Will give the Admins food for thought.

[calscot 0]

So if we owe Ticketus £27M, how much did they actually put in? They will have bought the tickets well below face value. The only money we know for sure that they have paid is the £18M paid to Lloyds. A lot of the amounts mentioned have included VAT which would be a quarter of the value of the tickets and would not need to be paid until the tickets are sold. 27 / 4 is 6.75, added to 18 makes £24.75M which is close to the number that has been bandied about. Who has said this £6.75M in tax

will not be paid out of the fans ticket payments?

 

As a layman I'm confused and putting the information together it looks like they have paid us £18M for which they were hoping for a 50% return over three or four years which probably works out at between 20% and 25% APR at four years and over 33% for three years.

 

So they seem to be taking an £8M hit on their £18M capital investment plus the interest.

 

You'd have to wonder why they are willing to do that except that they may get less than that in a CVA. Maybe the £10M owed plus the £10M extra financing is being rated with a high interest rate which enables some claw back of their money over about nine to twelve years. They could possibly make up the £8M shortfall in that time in interest payments.

 

In fact an approximate calculation of interest on 20M over 10 years on a linear scale at say 10% APR would give 50% interest or £10M. With a two year hiatus and gap years of no payment, this interest would increase to a few million more and so be at more than £1M per year. Add £2M a year of repayments and we're out £3M per year.

 

So it seems to me that Ticketus would eventually get their money back plus a bit more in this scenario - which is a lot better than what they would receive in a CVA.

 

That's just a layman's view given the confusing facts. Please feel free to enlighten me if I'm completely wrong.

Edited April 3, 2012 by calscot

[Bluedell 5,679]

So if we owe Ticketus £27M, how much did they actually put in? .

 

£27 million?

 

My simplistic view would be that they didn't lend us money. They "bought" future season tickets, and if they are not going to get them then they would be due back the cash that they put in.

 

As for the other stuff, VAT would be around 16.7% and not 25% and VAT would likely be payable immediately as the club would have raised an invoice.

[charltonman 19]

On the face of it I think the TBK offer looks like the most acceptable and will increase fan ownership ..I think we shouldn't lose sight of that as an objective for the future. Once the club has stabilised there may be alternatives to Ticketus as the main banker, remember they are owned by an investment company and so would normally be happier having had a years return in the bank rather than having a risky investment rolled forward.

 

The timing is annoying because a re-capitalised Rangers with responsible ownership would still (I believe and this is just a laymans opinion) have a strong case for suing MIH for any amount due under big tax ( probably supported by HMRC). We were effectivily a subsidiary company of a wider group at the time it happened. I mean the US govt didnt sue the subsidiary of BP in the gulf etc ...you go for where the money is. Given that there a lots of these deals around HMRC aren't going to stand for large corporations flogging off or closing subsidiary companies whre EBT's were used.

 

So its TBK loyal for me at the moment ....

[rbr 1,270]

On the face of it I think the TBK offer looks like the most acceptable and will increase fan ownership ..I think we shouldn't lose sight of that as an objective for the future. Once the club has stabilised there may be alternatives to Ticketus as the main banker, remember they are owned by an investment company and so would normally be happier having had a years return in the bank rather than having a risky investment rolled forward.

 

The timing is annoying because a re-capitalised Rangers with responsible ownership would still (I believe and this is just a laymans opinion) have a strong case for suing MIH for any amount due under big tax ( probably supported by HMRC). We were effectivily a subsidiary company of a wider group at the time it happened. I mean the US govt didnt sue the subsidiary of BP in the gulf etc ...you go for where the money is. Given that there a lots of these deals around HMRC aren't going to stand for large corporations flogging off or closing subsidiary companies whre EBT's were used.

 

So its TBK loyal for me at the moment ....

 

To be perfectly honest , once the club is saved and secure in the hands of new owners , the fans will do what they wlways do , put their money away and wait and see , the RFFF has raised comparetivly little , take away the few big donations and the money from Red and Black scarves and its not that much , the save Rangers scheme whilst looking like a lot will IHMO deliver only a fraction of that pledged .

 

There is so much spin and counter spin that its really difficult to get to the bottom of bids , I had first hand info of very very wealthy guys who were over the moon when we went into administration ,but it now turns out they were only interested in the liquidation route , and these guys are serious Rangers men , aye right

[calscot 0]

£27 million?

 

My simplistic view would be that they didn't lend us money. They "bought" future season tickets, and if they are not going to get them then they would be due back the cash that they put in.

 

As for the other stuff, VAT would be around 16.7% and not 25% and VAT would likely be payable immediately as the club would have raised an invoice.

 

I have no problem with the club paying their money back - £18M plus normal bank interest for a year. We owe that money (I can't see how we owe more) and should pay our debts. I feel we should pay all our debts in full - apart from the big tax case as I'm hoping we played enough by the rules there and personally think morally, that HMRC have ballsed up and if they wanted the money they should have asked for it 10 years ago which would have stopped us continuing with the EBT's. I have no problem with us shafting them in a CVA if they win.

 

I know people think of it as the public purse but tax money only belongs to the public when it is collected properly and fairly. I personally don't think it was done so in this case and so have no moral qualms about denying hospitals money that I don't think they should get in the first place. I don't think we should be so aggressively into tax avoidance but I think that lack of morals was completely the responsibility of SDM and not the club in a new form. It's also due to the incompetence of HMRC.

 

For me, the maximum I would think we could morally owe would be the unpaid tax in the last six years plus normal bank interest and be allowed to pay this over six years. However, I think the rules were poor and the only evidence they have is of the "mind reading" sort ie trying to prove someone's intentions. That is very weak and believe tax should not be charged on mere notions.

 

 

I made a mistake with the VAT.

 

I thought VAT was 20% not 25% but calculated on the purchase price. So, I thought if you pay £100 for something, £20 is VAT and £80 is the cost price. Therefore to reverse calculate the VAT on the £80 cost, £20 becomes 25%...

 

I've now checked and I've got that wrong - the VAT is on the cost not the purchase price - but that would still make it 20% for my calculations, not 16.7%.

 

You're right in that to calculate how much it is of the purchase price then you'd have to use 16.7% which would make the cost price £83.33 for a £100 product. Multiply by 120% and you get £100.

 

However, I was going on the speculation that the money paid was the cost price and did not include the VAT and so should have used 20%, not 25% or 16.7%, to calculate the VAT due.

 

Apologies for getting that wrong.

[Bluedell 5,679]

£18M plus normal bank interest for a year. We owe that money (I can't see how we owe more)

 

It appears that we owe more because Ticketus paid more.

[calscot 0]

It appears that we owe more because Ticketus paid more.

 

Possibly, but as I layman with limited facts, the only money I can tell that has been paid to Rangers is the £18M paid to Lloyds. For me CW owes any other money that has not come to the club. As he keeps his affairs quiet we don't know whether that is really 50p or £9M.

 

I can't see how we morally owe anyone anything they have not paid to the club. So if they get shafted, for that money, I personally don't care.

[Bluedell 5,679]

Possibly, but as I layman with limited facts, the only money I can tell that has been paid to Rangers is the £18M paid to Lloyds. For me CW owes any other money that has not come to the club. As he keeps his affairs quiet we don't know whether that is really 50p or £9M.

 

I can't see how we morally owe anyone anything they have not paid to the club. So if they get shafted, for that money, I personally don't care.

 

Morals have got nothing tio do with it. It's the legal situation.

 

It appears to me that what happened was as follows:

 

1. Ticketus pay £24m to Collyer Bristow, which is used as proof of funding.

2. Whyte buys the club for £1.

3. Rangers issue an invoice to Ticketus for £24m but ask for the cash to be paid to Rangers Group.

4. Ticketus allow CB to release the cash.

5. Rangers Group take (some of?) the cash and use £18m to pay off the bank loan.

 

The position is that Rangers raised the invoice for the £24m and Ticketus allowed the cash to be released into whatever account the directors of the club saw fit.

 

We may not like the fact that CW acted the way he did but it doesn't mean that he is liable for the cash (subject to any security). He acted as a director of the club and the club is liable.

 

The club missed its first repayment to Ticketus and presumably that's when the the £24m became £27m.

 

Edit - Calscot, I'm not convinced any of the Ticketus cash was ever actually paid directly into the club.

[Bears 0]

Morals have got nothing tio do with it. It's the legal situation.

 

It appears to me that what happened was as follows:

 

1. Ticketus pay £24m to Collyer Bristow, which is used as proof of funding.

2. Whyte buys the club for £1.

3. Rangers issue an invoice to Ticketus for £24m but ask for the cash to be paid to Rangers Group.

4. Ticketus allow CB to release the cash.

5. Rangers Group take (some of?) the cash and use £18m to pay off the bank loan.

 

The position is that Rangers raised the invoice for the £24m and Ticketus allowed the cash to be released into whatever account the directors of the club saw fit.

 

We may not like the fact that CW acted the way he did but it doesn't mean that he is liable for the cash (subject to any security). He acted as a director of the club and the club is liable.

 

The club missed its first repayment to Ticketus and presumably that's when the the £24m became £27m.

 

Edit - Calscot, I'm not convinced any of the Ticketus cash was ever actually paid directly into the club.

 

 

Del i've nicked that and posted it on my new Rangers FB page. I've credited you and Gersnet for the info.