GovanAllan 0 Posted May 18, 2012 Share Posted May 18, 2012 der Berliner said: So Ticketus is out of the running of a CVA and will instead pursue Whyte (or the company that backed the deal) for their cash? Are they still not in the pot, it's only the ticket agreement they have tore up. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bluedell 6,168 Posted May 18, 2012 Author Share Posted May 18, 2012 GovanAllan said: Are they still not in the pot, it's only the ticket agreement they have tore up. Correct. They are owed money from the CVA but will not have any claim on future income. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
chilledbear 16 Posted May 18, 2012 Share Posted May 18, 2012 Bluedell said: CG said that he paid CW £1 for the shares. That's what worries me. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
der Berliner 4,194 Posted May 18, 2012 Share Posted May 18, 2012 Bluedell said: Correct. They are owed money from the CVA but will not have any claim on future income. Still wondering why they have a claim from Rangers and possibly pursue it, when they also go after Whyte himself. Just in case they win both cases, will they get their money back twice? (Even though any CVA cash will be much smaller than their deal? I mean, that's double-justice? 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
GovanAllan 0 Posted May 18, 2012 Share Posted May 18, 2012 der Berliner said: Still wondering why they have a claim from Rangers and possibly pursue it, when they also go after Whyte himself. Just in case they win both cases, will they get their money back twice? (Even though any CVA cash will be much smaller than their deal? I mean, that's double-justice? Will they not just go after the shortfall. Good luck to them trying to tie that snake down. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bluedell 6,168 Posted May 18, 2012 Author Share Posted May 18, 2012 Yeah, I would presume it's just for the shortfall. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bluedell 6,168 Posted May 18, 2012 Author Share Posted May 18, 2012 chilledbear said: That's what worries me. Agreed. It seems too easy. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
GovanAllan 0 Posted May 18, 2012 Share Posted May 18, 2012 Bluedell said: Yeah, I would presume it's just for the shortfall. Are they allowed to do that is a debt settled through CVA not closed and final. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ian1964 10,874 Posted May 18, 2012 Share Posted May 18, 2012 He was not concerned about the risk of all the players walking away in the event of a newco as he believes it would be easy to get a team together due to the pulling power of the club and his contacts. What about the transfer embargo? 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
aweebluesoandso 290 Posted May 18, 2012 Share Posted May 18, 2012 ian1964 said: He was not concerned about the risk of all the players walking away in the event of a newco as he believes it would be easy to get a team together due to the pulling power of the club and his contacts. What about the transfer embargo? Hopefully that will be put on hold whilst the high court sorts it out? 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.