Rangers in administration (Non WHU)

Does exactly what it says on the tin - the forum for football-related discussion.

Moderators: Romford, Rio, Gnome, Northern Paulo, Lost Hammer, bonehead, chalks, goes2eleven, Alf Garnett's (Ex) Missus, bristolhammerfc, Wheels, sicknote

Re: Rangers in administration (Non WHU)

Postby Antwerp_Lad on Sat Apr 28, 2012 11:38 am

Whyte's an absolute ****.

But the administrators are trying to find something (most likely the Ticketus deal, where he sold season tickets that weren't his to sell) to get criminal charges against him.
User avatar
Antwerp_Lad
 
Posts: 2286
Joined: Thu Jan 19, 2006 3:37 am
Location: Cork.

Re: Rangers in administration (Non WHU)

Postby Cuenca 'ammer on Sat Apr 28, 2012 12:29 pm

Straws. At. Clutching.

He paid a quid for the club, my old mate Pinky could afford that.

:wink:
User avatar
Cuenca 'ammer
ex 'ouston 'ammer
 
Posts: 22995
Joined: Thu Dec 05, 2002 5:19 pm
Location: Journey to the dead of night. High on a hill in Eldorado

Re: Rangers in administration (Non WHU)

Postby Antwerp_Lad on Sat Apr 28, 2012 1:40 pm

Nothing to do with 'straws', it's a realistic possibility that they will find something sooner or later to charge him with.

In the meantime there's more Rangers fans marching to Hampden than there are at Tannadice.

Image
User avatar
Antwerp_Lad
 
Posts: 2286
Joined: Thu Jan 19, 2006 3:37 am
Location: Cork.

Re: Rangers in administration (Non WHU)

Postby York Ham(mer) on Sat Apr 28, 2012 2:39 pm

Antwerp_Lad wrote:But the administrators are trying to find something (most likely the Ticketus deal, where he sold season tickets that weren't his to sell) to get criminal charges against him.

Antwerp_Lad wrote:Nothing to do with 'straws', it's a realistic possibility that they will find something sooner or later to charge him with.

Not the administrators' job to charge Whyte with anything, especially criminal charges.
User avatar
York Ham(mer)
 
Posts: 6726
Joined: Sat Mar 05, 2005 7:15 am
Location: In exile up north

Re: Rangers in administration (Non WHU)

Postby Antwerp_Lad on Sat Apr 28, 2012 2:43 pm

Not charging him, but finding the evidence needed.
User avatar
Antwerp_Lad
 
Posts: 2286
Joined: Thu Jan 19, 2006 3:37 am
Location: Cork.

Re: Rangers in administration (Non WHU)

Postby Happyhammer52 on Sat Apr 28, 2012 3:03 pm

Typical Rangers 'fans' SFA offices at Hampden don't operate on a Saturday! Least they know the direction when they play Queens Park in the Third Divsion next year.

Meanwhile, Glen Gibbons is right on the ball with comments in this article posted today.

http://www.scotsman.com/the-scotsman/sport/football/glenn-gibbons-mccoist-and-smith-fail-to-see-true-ibrox-saboteurs-1-2261890
User avatar
Happyhammer52
 
Posts: 2324
Joined: Sat Jan 24, 2004 7:52 pm
Location: Inverness

Re: Rangers in administration (Non WHU)

Postby Cuenca 'ammer on Sat Apr 28, 2012 3:17 pm

The time line will be the Key AL

IF he promised to sell the tickets to TicketUs and they "loaned" him the money to pay off the bank the day after he paid a quid for Rangers, there on the face of it doesn't seem to be anything wrong.

Says he goes to them on a Thursday says stick the money in the company that he created for a couple of days, he buys the club on Friday and flogs the tickets on Saturday. Nowt wrong there. His promises to Murray really mean squat. A bit like our promises to Kia after we tore up the contract, nudge nudge wink wink.

We'll have to see.
User avatar
Cuenca 'ammer
ex 'ouston 'ammer
 
Posts: 22995
Joined: Thu Dec 05, 2002 5:19 pm
Location: Journey to the dead of night. High on a hill in Eldorado

Re: Rangers in administration (Non WHU)

Postby Antwerp_Lad on Sat Apr 28, 2012 3:24 pm

Happyhammer52 wrote:Typical Rangers 'fans' SFA offices at Hampden don't operate on a Saturday! Least they know the direction when they play Queens Park in the Third Divsion next year.

Meanwhile, Glen Gibbons is right on the ball with comments in this article posted today.

http://www.scotsman.com/the-scotsman/sport/football/glenn-gibbons-mccoist-and-smith-fail-to-see-true-ibrox-saboteurs-1-2261890


**** article, there's no Rangers fan, player or staff-member who doesn't know that ultimately Murray is the culprit.

And neither is there any journalist who is attempting to clear Murray of any wrong-doing.

The fact you put fans in brackets says enough.

edit: Cuenca.

The timeline is as follows.

Whyte comes in, saying he wants to buy the club, get rid off the debt to Lloyds yada yada yada.
He then gets Ticketus involved, who give him the money he used to take-over the club.

Turns out he used season tickets to get that money, so he got the money and sold season tickets before he became the owner of the club.

Strathclyde Police are investigating the take-over, but this could take months.
In any case it'll all be over (whether liquidation, CVA, newco,...) before that **** gets caught.
User avatar
Antwerp_Lad
 
Posts: 2286
Joined: Thu Jan 19, 2006 3:37 am
Location: Cork.

Re: Rangers in administration (Non WHU)

Postby Cuenca 'ammer on Sat Apr 28, 2012 3:49 pm

AL

You're slightly wrong there. He used the TicketUs money to pay off the debt, not to buy the club. Big difference. Cost him a quid, which I reiterate my mate Pinky could afford.

Even the most ardent sensible Rangers fans realise he didn't buy the club with money from TicketUs.

He may have promised Murray that he would invest as a part of taking the club over, and he never. Unless that was in the contract (which I would doubt but I'm no legal expert) then again no wrong doing.

He might have persuaded TicketUs with a "I'll give you the money back if I don't get the club," or "I'll sell you tickets for a guarantee of an advance of money for me to take the debt over" which he apparently did, Lloyd's could give a rat's arse where the money comes from, they got their debt money so to all intents and purposes he did nothing illegal (on the face of it) buying the club for the agreed sum of a quid, borrowing money from TicketUs for season tickets which as owner of the club he was (on the face of it) legally allowed to do.

If TicketUs loaned him money they were at fault if they bought something that wasn't his to sell, but I would imagine that someone loaning someone 20M+ quid would have at least secured some kind of equity. If they didn't more fool them.

Wembley and QN will no doubt straighten this out a bit more but I think they have already covered most of this.
User avatar
Cuenca 'ammer
ex 'ouston 'ammer
 
Posts: 22995
Joined: Thu Dec 05, 2002 5:19 pm
Location: Journey to the dead of night. High on a hill in Eldorado

Re: Rangers in administration (Non WHU)

Postby Antwerp_Lad on Sat Apr 28, 2012 5:17 pm

I know he didn't use the money to buy the club, but the paying off of Lloyds was part of the deal.

The issue is that the tickets were sold before he was actually the owner of the club.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/footba ... -bank.html
User avatar
Antwerp_Lad
 
Posts: 2286
Joined: Thu Jan 19, 2006 3:37 am
Location: Cork.

Re: Rangers in administration (Non WHU)

Postby Cuenca 'ammer on Sat Apr 28, 2012 6:11 pm

Sportsmail can reveal Whyte convinced Ticketus to advance him £24.4million on the proviso that he would then buy Rangers. That cash was deposited into a client account with his London-based lawyer Collyer Bristow on April 7.

Whyte then showed Murray that balance as evidence he had sufficient funds to give Lloyds Bank the £18m they were owed — one of the key conditions of the sale.

He then bought Murray’s 85.3 per cent shareholding for £1 on May 6, paid off Lloyds and used Rangers employees' personal tax — which should have been handed over to HMRC — to help run the club. Until it ran out and forced administration eight days ago, that is.

None of this is new. None of this says he acted illegally. As I said before (and it was a general guess based upon what I have read) he got TicketUs to advance him the money against the buyout. He never sold them the tickets only (again I'm guessing) said that he "would" if he brought the club. He did. And he did.

So time line could be:
Convinces TicketUs to advance him the money on May 1st-3rd . They do.
He shows Murray that he has the money on May 4th, which he does.
Buys club for a quid on May 6th.
Signs deal with TicketUs on May 7th.
Pays banks on May 8th.

All legal and above board.

As much as they are trying to prove he acted illegally so far they haven't. My guess is based on what has been shown so far, he hasn't. Morally wrong, maybe. Legally wrong ? Doesn't seem like it so far at any rate.
User avatar
Cuenca 'ammer
ex 'ouston 'ammer
 
Posts: 22995
Joined: Thu Dec 05, 2002 5:19 pm
Location: Journey to the dead of night. High on a hill in Eldorado

Re: Rangers in administration (Non WHU)

Postby York Ham(mer) on Sat Apr 28, 2012 11:38 pm

On the face of it, it was simply a leveraged buyout and legal. Of course, new information may yet emerge....
User avatar
York Ham(mer)
 
Posts: 6726
Joined: Sat Mar 05, 2005 7:15 am
Location: In exile up north

Re: Rangers in administration (Non WHU)

Postby Happyhammer52 on Sun Apr 29, 2012 4:25 pm

Celtic banners before today's Old Firm.
http://instagr.am/p/KAZdQsG2DK/
User avatar
Happyhammer52
 
Posts: 2324
Joined: Sat Jan 24, 2004 7:52 pm
Location: Inverness

Re: Rangers in administration (Non WHU)

Postby QuintonNimoy on Mon Apr 30, 2012 11:03 am

Antwerp_Lad wrote:I know he didn't use the money to buy the club, but the paying off of Lloyds was part of the deal.

It's hard to imagine he'd sign a buyout agreement in which he was committed to paying off a debt or have the transfer of shares to himself declared void, particularly if he had no intention of really repaying the debt rather just removing it to himself/his companies with the same security. If there were legal grounds for having the deal cancelled it would already be before a court. Even then the debt situation is what it is - Rangers would still owe him millions. It's far more likely they were simply well intentioned undertakings with no legal force.

The administrators may report anything criminal they find, but it's possible to act like a complete **** and still be entirely within the law, particularly in the world of business. His cohort at Collyer Bristow might well be in a bit of hot water, maybe with the SRA, but Whyte has no committment to their rules or regulations either. It seems to me that he's been inspired by the people who've been putting Portsmouth through the mill, particularly in getting their own administrators in and keeping up cyclical administrations through which they bleed the club continuously. Doesn't look like that's working out with Rangers though.
QuintonNimoy
 
Posts: 7902
Joined: Fri Jul 13, 2007 9:24 am

Re: Rangers in administration (Non WHU)

Postby Johnny Byrne's Boots on Mon Apr 30, 2012 4:06 pm

If HMRC get fed up with Whyte and/or the administrators (who as far as I can tell seem to be working in the best interests of Rangers, not their creditors) taking the piss can they, as a major creditor, veto any deal as not being in their best interests?
User avatar
Johnny Byrne's Boots
 
Posts: 8250
Joined: Mon Jun 05, 2006 5:19 pm
Location: The dry again leafy lanes of Surrey

Re: Rangers in administration (Non WHU)

Postby Cuenca 'ammer on Mon Apr 30, 2012 4:17 pm

All 12 Scottish Premier League clubs have agreed to postpone talks over financial fair play proposals until next Monday.

Discussions over whether to introduce tough new rules for clubs who go into administration or face the prospect of liquidation were set to take place at Monday's general meeting at Hampden.




Speaking after today's adjournment, SPL chief executive Neil Doncaster said: "Clubs felt that this was a sensitive time within Scottish football and that it was important to allow a little bit of time to elapse to allow more clarity to come forward and to do nothing at the moment that may prejudice any decisions that are going on in the background.

All new decisions to be implemented after Rangers case has been sorted ?
User avatar
Cuenca 'ammer
ex 'ouston 'ammer
 
Posts: 22995
Joined: Thu Dec 05, 2002 5:19 pm
Location: Journey to the dead of night. High on a hill in Eldorado

Re: Rangers in administration (Non WHU)

Postby Le Rascal de Boleyn on Mon Apr 30, 2012 10:54 pm

Rangers FC 2013 Line up -
Naismith, Naifuture,Naiclass,Naimoney,Naistadium, Naihope,Naitrophies,Naiprospects, Naifans,Naimanager,Naiplayers.
User avatar
Le Rascal de Boleyn
 
Posts: 445
Joined: Tue Mar 10, 2009 7:12 pm

Re: Rangers in administration (Non WHU)

Postby Cuenca 'ammer on Mon Apr 30, 2012 11:21 pm

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

:lol:

VOTE DELAY GIVES RANGERS BIDDERS TIME

Shock..never saw that coming...
User avatar
Cuenca 'ammer
ex 'ouston 'ammer
 
Posts: 22995
Joined: Thu Dec 05, 2002 5:19 pm
Location: Journey to the dead of night. High on a hill in Eldorado

Re: Rangers in administration (Non WHU)

Postby Johnny Byrne's Boots on Thu May 03, 2012 2:38 pm

Miller named preferred bidder. (BBC site)

................
The America-based businessman aims to form an "incubator" company that would see the assets of Rangers transferred to a new company.................

.............The "incubator" idea would leave an "old company" saddled with the club's debts and aiming to deal with its creditors via a Creditors Voluntary Arrangement [CVA].
Administrator Paul Clark explained that the two entities would later reunite, saying he thought it was an "entirely workable strategy"......


I wonder what the creditors think of that?
User avatar
Johnny Byrne's Boots
 
Posts: 8250
Joined: Mon Jun 05, 2006 5:19 pm
Location: The dry again leafy lanes of Surrey

Re: Rangers in administration (Non WHU)

Postby Cuenca 'ammer on Thu May 03, 2012 2:50 pm

The poor people on the streets would be unhappy but my guess would be everyone else would be ****ing themselves silly.

No 15 point deduction for the next few years, no NewCo so no having to battle their way up the leagues.

Think I said the other day, they'll get a slap on the wrist, business will continue as normal and everyone including the tax man will be left without a proverbial pot to piss in.

Oh but Miller had better watch his p's and q's for the new couple of weeks until all of this blows over after being severely admonished by the SFA. He'll be on double secret probation.

Let's see how happy they are over at FollowFollow.

Probably not enough hankies to go around while they're tossing one off in front of their computer screens.
User avatar
Cuenca 'ammer
ex 'ouston 'ammer
 
Posts: 22995
Joined: Thu Dec 05, 2002 5:19 pm
Location: Journey to the dead of night. High on a hill in Eldorado

PreviousNext

Return to General Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot], Peaches, Rodney Morash, SRXT and 38 guests