Yeah I understand that but he's telling us that Ticketus won't be due any proceeds from the sale of future season tickets. I thought that was the big problem? That they'll be getting a share of season ticket money for 3/4 years, whatever it was
Dhuff and Phhelps Eh ok he didn't say we could tear up the agreement but he didny say we couldn't How much a day? Taking the piss
Only if D&P choose not to honour the deal: "Lord Hodge has stated Ticketus has what are known as contractual rights, essentially a contract between the Club and themselves. It is clear from the judgement that, as administrators, we have the statutory right and powers to have the company (the Club) refuse to honour the Ticketus arrangements if such a decision would be in the interests of creditors generally." You can imagine what would happen next if they reneged on the deal.
The existing deal stands. That means that by whatever mechanism there is a contract between Rangers and Ticketus to the tune of £24m. This spin is incredible. "We didn't really want to win anyway".
I might be way wrong (I'm sure timmy will put me right) but can Duff & Phelps not just accept a bid from anyone but the blue knights and therefore not honour the contract with ticketus?
New or Extra Information from the Case 1 Rangers Football Club PLC (Rangers) was and remains unable to pay its bills as they fall due. 2 The application for the Administration Order referred to a £9 million liability to HMRC. 3 The administrators (D&P) want either to rescue Rangers with a share issue, or to sell off the assets of the company, in either event with a CVA. 4 D&P wanted the court to give them carte blanche to breach the Ticketus deal, without fear of legal action by Ticketus. 5 D&P based their original sale prospectus on the Ticketus deal being void, but had to amend this to include the possibility of it staying in place. 6 âTicketusâ is a combination of two Limited Liability Partnerships, Ticketus LLP and Ticketus 2 LLP, both consisting of a large number of companies under the Ticketus umbrella. 7 The Ticketus agreement was with Rangers, not with Rangers FC Group Ltd (Group) or anyone else. 8 The agreement was signed, and first payment of £20 million made, on 9th May, 3 days after the takeover. 9 It was proposed that Rangers would lend Group £16 million. 10 A second payment of £5 million was made six days after Martin Bain was granted a court order freezing sums in the Rangers accounts. 11 Notwithstanding any other argument D&P have, they are trying to have the Ticketus deal declared unenforceable on âfinancial assistanceâ grounds. I aim to discuss the new information revealed in this case below in more detail. In later posts I want to explain some of the implications of the case for Rangersâ future and potential sale of the Club. Finally, it is also the case that the decision could have serious consequences for the Scottish finance sector, which I will try to address. As always, I am happy to be educated and corrected by those wiser than me. Do We Learn Anything New From The Decision? Yes. This case and Lord Hodgeâs decision are the first public acknowledgement of many issues which have been causing confusion since the Rangers situation started to deteriorate. The relevant, and in some cases, newly revealed facts are as follows:- Rangers Insolvency As we know D&P had to go back to the court on the basis that their original appointment by Rangers was defective, because of a failure to notify the FSA. When Mr Sellar (D&Pâs QC) asked the court to grant an administration order backdated to 14[SUP]th[/SUP] February, this confirmed (a) that Rangers accepted that it had been insolvent as at 14[SUP]th[/SUP] February and (b) that D&P accepted that Rangers remained so on 19[SUP]th[/SUP] March when the retrospective administration was dealt with. Mr Sellar referred the court to a debt of over £9 million to HMRC. That is assumed to relate to the unpaid VAT and Income Tax accrued by Rangers whilst under the control of Mr Whyte, or more correctly of his companies. How Do D&P Aim to Get Rangers out of Administration? D&P have come up with two alternative ways of achieving the purposes of administration. They are laid down in the Administration Rules. The primary purposes are, in order, to rescue Rangers as a going concern, which failing, to achieve a better result for the creditors as a whole than if it was wound up without first being in administration. D&P have identified, and told the court, that they see two realistic options. Option one is a âsubscription of new shares in Rangers and a sale of the present majority shareholding combined with a Company Voluntary Arrangement (CVA) between Rangers and its creditorsâ. The alternative is âa sale of the business and assets of Rangers, again combined with a CVAâ.
I'll be honest, **** knows but it's a real mess to be sure. This could drag through the courts for years so maybe the best option is liquidation and a Phoenix Rangers FC?
Basically the case is complicated by differences between English and Scots Law – the contract was drawn in England and there are several stipulations within it that it should be judged exclusively under English Law. Under English Law, Ticketus have a “trust” on the future assets. Under Scot’s law they are simply a creditor. The judgment was made under Scots Law, and is subject to challenge – Ticketus may well go down this route. But let’s say the admins breach the contract…. Points to note. Before today’s judgment was made public, the press (and other commentators) seemed to be operating under the assumption that the Ticketus deal was being challenged because Whyte’s takeover bid (financed by Ticketus) was unlawful…this is simply not the case. First of all it assumes that Whyte arranged a deal and received funds from Ticketus BEFORE assuming ownership of RFC. This isn’t really the case. If you look at the Share Purchase Agreement between MHL, Wavetower and Liberty (Murray and White) clause 6.1.3 (page 15 of the document attached in this email) clearly states that the Purchaser has from their own “and third party resources” the cash resources necessary to a) meet the obligations under the SPA b) pay the amount payable under the Assignation Agreement (transfer of debt from Lloyds to Wavetower et al (and with it the floating charge) c) a working capital agreement [which, I note, is immediately terminated in effect of an insolvency event...] but it also states that these resources are “subject to completion” of the sale. ie. these resources (money from a 3rd party) are subject to Whyte actually buying Rangers. Most importantly the SPA is dated the 6th of May, and the court judgment (today) clearly states that Ticketus bought the tickets on the 9th of May. There is therefore absolutely no dispute as to whether or not Whyte secured this capital from Ticketus before he bought Rangers. He did not. The deal took place between Rangers and Ticketus AFTER Whyte bought the club. Secondly, it could not be challenged on the grounds that Whyte was relying on 3rd party capital to finance his purchase of the sales. He did not. He used 3rd party capital to assume liability of the debt. He bought the shares with a shiny pound coin. Now….the agreement between Rangers and Ticketus also states that the debt is underwritten by Wavetower. So if the contract was to be breached, or could not be fulfilled…due to…let’s say…an insolvency event? Then who would be liable? Wavetower (Whyte). So Whyte indisputably has the floating charge. But what is that worth? It’s worth the working capital facility (up to £5 million, or whatever or it has been used), the promised investment (up to £5 million to be spent by the end of the season UNLESS an insolvency event occurs…which it has). It is also worth the £18 million owed to Lloyds – but this has been paid off with season ticket money from Wavetower and is therefore worth nothing from that point onwards. Of this, all that really matters is what has been spend in working capital and/or investment in players. BUT – if the ticketus deal was to be broken, then he would be liable for the debt. He would have to pay Ticketus the money, and would thus have a floating charge of (however many million was borrowed from Ticketus) I think that the administrators will breach the contract (under Scots law they are perfectly able to do this so long as doing so enables them to get a better deal for ALL creditors than they would be able to if they honoured the contract). Ticketus could sue – but remember that the agreement with the club stipulates that it is underwritten by Wavetower – Wavetower assumes the risk, and therefore THIS becomes Whyte’s floating charge. Whyte can then claim whatever he is due to pay Ticketus from any CVA or liquidation agreement. He could then still break even on the ticketus deal – and profit from the sale of shares. or…he could even claim that the floating charge is equal to whatever ticketus is claiming (40million the value of the contract) and then claim that from rangers, then only pay back ticketus what they are due as a creditor – 24 million (less the 9 they’ve been repaid already) – that’s his opportunity (possibly) to make money from an insolvency triggering breach of contract. Plus he could still profit from a sale (if a sale is possible).
Poor Mr Whyte was quite happy to do a deal with the fans, but that was before some people who should have known better said some terrible things about Mr Whyte. the soon to be former Sir, D. Murray said he was duped by Mr Whyte. That hurt Mr Whyte's feelings, fan groups have also expressed their anger and the pro-Rangers Scotish media have tried to put all the blame on to poor Craig. Craig now has no intentions of coming back to Scotland and has advised his legal team to stick their heels in and fight for everything legally and illegally his. This will be a long drawn out affair and the only winner will be Craig.
We are Rangers.....Glasgow Rangers We don’t do walking..... away Any day or night.....we will stand and fight We don’t do walking.....away
Trying to make some sense of this, so thinking a bit out loud here... Clearly the admins (blunder & blunderer) are seeking to save Rangers via CVA - which requires agreement from almost all creditors (75%). Had the Ticketus deal been ruled unenforceable surely the money would have to be repaid? In other words Ticketus would be a creditor. The judge did rule that Ticketus have no special status and are simply a creditor. So if the contract is not, or cannot, be honoured what's the difference? Is it likely legal action by Ticketus ( on breach of contract, perhaps ) that remains the stumbling block to potential bidders? That does not apply to the Blue Knights who have Ticketus onside and who you would then expect to honour the contract? How does that work if we come out of admin via CVA? Ticketus are a creditor under terms of the CVA and would have agreed what was to be repaid to them so you then cannot expect them to get their allocation of the future season tickets? Gies ye a sore heid all this so it diz. Where's that trampy para-legal Pope when you need him?
