TBK & Ticketus

[charltonman 19]

Maybe you're right RBR but I tend to be a bit more optimistic about our fans. It happened at Charlton a few years back now and the fans did dig into their own pockets to get their club back ...and Charlton doesnt have nearly as many well off fans as we do. Let's see what happens next eh ?

[calscot 0]

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

 

Got to disagree with you there. Morals have everything to do with what I'm talking about, but even in the great scheme of things, business and law are originally based entirely on morals. For instance: you agree to sell something to me and the I can either a) pay you the money for the goods, b) take the goods and promise to pay the money later but don't or c) hit you over the head and take the goods.

 

Now which case is doing business and legal? Which cases are not moral?

 

The problem is that business and the law often lose the plot and diverge from the originally morality they are based on.

 

But my whole point in thread is the morality of the situation.

 

If it was all business, law and no morality, then we should probably just liquidate and shaft as many people as we can - who cares about the "continuity" if morality is nothing? It will probably make us stronger in the end with no debts to pay - and no need to donate money - that's not exactly a business thing to do or a legal requirement.

 

However, I was talking about my own moral attitudes towards how much we should pay people - especially as it seems many will not get what they think they are owed. There are many that I'd feel bad about - like St John's Ambulance for instance. Some other people want us to feel bad about not paying tax as it pays for hospitals and schools etc - but I don't feel bad about a tax that I don't think was fairly applied.

 

Some want us to feel bad about winning trophies on the back of spending money we couldn't afford and then using a CVA or liquidation as a get out. When it comes to business and legality, it's all above board, so who cares?

 

As a fan, I do and would prefer we pay what we owed. However, I'm not going to feel bad if Ticketus lose money that we didn't receive and as they were complicit in an immoral takeover and so if they lose out in some of the money I'm not too bothered.

 

Morality is weaved through the whole thing and if it wasn't there would be little to talk about as we'd be dispassionately waiting and seeing how the business and legality works itself out, with not much to say.

 

We'd also have little to say about Craig Whyte as it sseems that so far, all he's done is pure business and there's a good chance he stayed within the law. If morality has nothing to do with it then you must see him as an OK guy who knows how to make a buck.

 

So to get back to ticketus - they will be paid whatever they get paid. If we look at it in a business sense or a legal sense then we should have no opinion, just observation.

 

However, I will have a moral opinion, which will be that I would prefer if they received £18M as that's what I think they deserve.

 

With HMRC, I'd like them to be paid the PAYE and VAT they are due in full as well as the small tax bill, but not the big tax case or the penalties for the small tax bill.

 

With everyone else, I hope they get the money they are due, including DU.

 

If that happens, I will have no guilt or bad feelings about winning trophies with money we didn't have and didn't pay. I think that is wrong and so I'm not hypocritical when it comes to my own club.

 

The thing is, if you remove the big tax case, which I personally think are unfair, and the immoral profiteering of Ticketus, I believe there should be enough money to pay all the bills - going on the fact that our income can't be too different from previous years where we paid our bills AND reduced debt by millions every year. Couple that with the players wage cuts and the donations and I can't see how we'd have a shortfall - unless CW removed other money from the club - which I would see as totally immoral.

 

I should feel sorry for the players but I don't due to them being overpaid and the way they go about getting their inflated wages. I do however think it's a great gesture but at the same time would be pretty annoyed at them if they didn't - even if they are "entitled" to collect their full wage.

 

I don't disagree with your synopsis on the Ticketus cash. But if they legally only get a fraction of the money back then that's not my problem.

[Bluedell 5,679]

Calscot, you were talking about the amount that they were morally owed. If you think that the amount is based on morals then knock yourself out.

 

As for the rest of your post, I think you're reading too much into my simple statement which was only referring to the amount due to Ticketus.

 

I find it a bit bizarre that you base the amount that Ticketus "deserve" to have repaid to them on what was done with the cash by the club/Group, which is out of their control, rather than what they actually advanced, but I guess you have your reasons.

[forlanssister 3,114]

Morality and justice have long ceased to be compatible bedfellows.

[calscot 0]

Calscot, you were talking about the amount that they were morally owed. If you think that the amount is based on morals then knock yourself out.

 

You're arguing against yourself here. The amount will be the amount no matter what I say. I'm just giving my opinion on what I personally think is right.

 

As for the rest of your post, I think you're reading too much into my simple statement which was only referring to the amount due to Ticketus.

 

No idea what you mean here.

 

I find it a bit bizarre that you base the amount that Ticketus "deserve" to have repaid to them on what was done with the cash by the club/Group, which is out of their control, rather than what they actually advanced, but I guess you have your reasons.

 

Of course I do. It's pretty obvious isn't it? They deserve the money back from Rangers that they advanced to Rangers. That was £18M - why do they deserve more from Rangers than the money the club received? The rest is the business of whoever they advanced the money to. If they were conned by someone who took the money then that shouldn't be Rangers' liability.

 

Again what they are actually paid has nothing to do with what I think they deserve. I'm just discussing it. Like I said if you want to stick to facts and figures this site will be pretty empty and no-one will have anything to say unless they have a fact or figure.

 

Your arguments are a bit strange. It's a bit like someone saying something like, "I think rapists deserve to be chemically castrated," and you reply, "Their punishment will be based on what the law allows."

 

You're pretty much stating the obvious without actually getting the point of the opinion and therefore being unable to actually debate it.

 

Maybe you think that if CW gets 30 million for his shares in a legal business transaction then by definition he must "deserve" it...

[Bluedell 5,679]

Of course I do. It's pretty obvious isn't it? They deserve the money back from Rangers that they advanced to Rangers. That was £18M - why do they deserve more from Rangers than the money the club received?

 

No, it wasn't as I've already explained.

 

As for the rest, you're just arguing for the sake of it and making up stuff. Rapists? FFS.

[calscot 0]

No, it wasn't as I've already explained.

 

As for the rest, you're just arguing for the sake of it and making up stuff. Rapists? FFS.

 

Wow! That's what you got from that? Talk about woosh.

 

As I've said before I keep crediting you with a sophistication that you fail to live up to. I usually presume people will understand analogy and metaphor but it seems even their concepts are alien to you. No wonder I can't get even on the same ballpark as you as you are just far too literal...

[BrahimHemdani 1]

https://twitter.com/#!/DavidHillier Who' a financial expert has tweeted this about the deal. maybe it's not as good as it sounds

 

 

this isn't necessarily good for RFC. Ticketus will get 37% of monies owed with PM, compared to 5-10% in CVA.

 

Quite so, anything above 10% is a WIN for Ticketus.

[BrahimHemdani 1]

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 ....

 

Looks like a Mort Kunzler to me, Charltonman!