Craig Whyte Statement

This concurring, that evidently Ki isn't very bright.

Liking the new 'c' in your name Jela

hume7 wrote:Liking the new 'c' in your name Jela

Very suave.

Ki wrote:Nobody knows it to that detail, stop nit picking. You came in and said my post didn't make sense, when I explained it again only then you realised that it was a loan he took out. That was the bit you didn't understand, why they were in debt, that it was borrowed.

Laurencio wrote:Oh he borrowed against the tickets. That's not what you said at first...

You're trying to tell me I didn't say it in the first place and confusing yourself about interest rates. That's got nothing to do with it.

The interest rate is obviously going to be important.

*As I understand it he took out a loan with ticketbus by using season tickets as security. So far so good right?

*With that loan he paid down the old loan.

*He then borrowed the money to his own company, correct?

*And lent it back to Rangers, correct?

The interest rate is alpha omega.

Laurencio wrote:

Ki wrote:Nobody knows it to that detail, stop nit picking. You came in and said my post didn't make sense, when I explained it again only then you realised that it was a loan he took out. That was the bit you didn't understand, why they were in debt, that it was borrowed.



You're trying to tell me I didn't say it in the first place and confusing yourself about interest rates. That's got nothing to do with it.

The interest rate is obviously going to be important.

*As I understand it he took out a loan with ticketbus by using season tickets as security. So far so good right?

*With that loan he paid down the old loan.

*He then borrowed the money to his own company, correct?

*And lent it back to Rangers, correct?

The interest rate is alpha omega.

No, it's not correct.

He took out the loan to pay a debt he said he could pay himself, so he took out the loan with ticketus, not ticketbus, to pay the £18 mil debt. So no, he did not use it to pay a loan, he paid debt with this loan. He then borrowed MORE from ticketus because he could not afford to pay the first installment of the repayment of the loan!! So NOW can you see how they are in about £42 mil in debt. The whole thing about lending it back to Rangers is irrelevant, it is just suggested he did this to earn money. Also please tell me why the interest rate is so important in the grand scale of Rangers debt. You've seriously misjudged this.

Ki wrote:

Laurencio wrote:

The interest rate is obviously going to be important.

*As I understand it he took out a loan with ticketbus by using season tickets as security. So far so good right?

*With that loan he paid down the old loan.

*He then borrowed the money to his own company, correct?

*And lent it back to Rangers, correct?

The interest rate is alpha omega.

No, it's not correct.

He took out the loan to pay a debt he said he could pay himself, so he took out the loan with ticketus, not ticketbus, to pay the £18 mil debt. So no, he did not use it to pay a loan, he paid debt with this loan. He then borrowed MORE from ticketus because he could not afford to pay the first installment of the repayment of the loan!! So NOW can you see how they are in about £42 mil in debt. The whole thing about lending it back to Rangers is irrelevant, it is just suggested he did this to earn money. Also please tell me why the interest rate is so important in the grand scale of Rangers debt. You've seriously misjudged this.

Interest rates are fairly important when we're talking loans and debts, but I'm really just trying to get my head around the sequence of events here.

1. Rangers debt before he came in was £18M owed to Lloyds Banking Group (correct?)

2. Whyte took out a loan on £25M with Ticketus using season tickets as security (correct?)

3. Whyte used that £25M to pay the £18M debt (correct?)

4. Whyte then took up another loan to pay the first installment of the ticketus loan (correct?)

5. Whyte took the money he loaned from ticketus and lent it to his company(correct?)

6. Whyte then lent the money back to Rangers (correct?)

7. The result being that Ranger's debt is now £25M (to Ticketus) and whatever was left to Whyte's company, totaling £45M (correct?)

£45m of debt is nothing compared to what Portsmouth's was.

42 mil in debt that's correct

Listen from 6:55

Jordi wrote:£45m of debt is nothing compared to what Portsmouth's was.

This £42m is BEFORE two tax bills come their way. One of about £25m and the bigger one which is almost £50m

But a significant porition of that has gone between Rangers, to Whyte's company and back again yes? If Rangers lent the money, or sold the debt, to Whyte's company at say 4 pounds to the pound, and Whyte's company lends it back with a 1:1 ratio, then Rangers would effectively make money off the debt. Instead of bleeding the club dry, he pumps money into the club through an artificial debt.

It is of course possible that it's the other way around, in which case Ranger's debt could easily triple in the course of the next few years. Hence why I'm curious about the interest rates.

I can't answer your question about the interest rates. There will definately be some information on wwww.rangerstaxcase.com

Ki wrote:I can't answer your question about the interest rates. There will definately be some information on wwww.rangerstaxcase.com

I can't see anything about interest rates, lend policies, or even contractual agreements regarding debt defaults. He could just as well be saving the club a shed load of money in taxes as he could be bleeding it dry at this point.

I'm not going to pretend I was able to tell you this. I spoke to someone in regards to your question about interest rates.

Whyte has borrowed £30m up front from ticketus

£2m originally

repayed £3m in june 2011 out of 9m that was due

He added to his borrowing by borrowing a further £6+ mill in june 2011 to that he could cover the FIRST installment

ticketus front load their charges by taking on board ticket sales and lending out about 60% to 75% of the face value of the tickets then then keep the rest as their "profit"

Rangers are a very high risk gamble, and its over more than 2 years which is outside ticketus normal lending all this is reflected in the charges

even with Ibrox as security in a distressed sale it aint worth a lot

The best guess is Rangers got 60% to 65% of the face value of the tickets so they gave ticketus approx £48 mill of tickets

If Rangers had not dealt with ticketus they would for the next 4 years be getting 12m in each year

the sold these rights and are getting an up front payment of 7m to 7.5m

This is now referring to your claim that this could be helping Rangers...

"How on earth they can then re lend that at a profit is beyond me but if your friend can provide details of this investment myself and a lot of friends will put every penny we have into it"


I would advise him to do so as well as nowhere has there ever been such a amazing deal.

I have kept it simple but not even getting into the possibilities that Whyte via wavetower are charging Rangers to reborrow their own money adding interest and fees to this or that they seem to have spirited away in excess of £15 / 16 million

the money should have gone straight into rangers bank account, not whytes so why did it go into wavetowers is a big question

The suggestion of lendings between wavetower and rangers being arranged in rangers favour is ludicrous

Ki wrote:I'm not going to pretend I was able to tell you this. I spoke to someone in regards to your question about interest rates.

Whyte has borrowed £30m up front from ticketus

£2m originally

repayed £3m in june 2011 out of 9m that was due

He added to his borrowing by borrowing a further £6+ mill in june 2011 to that he could cover the FIRST installment

ticketus front load their charges by taking on board ticket sales and lending out about 60% to 75% of the face value of the tickets then then keep the rest as their "profit"

Rangers are a very high risk gamble, and its over more than 2 years which is outside ticketus normal lending all this is reflected in the charges

even with Ibrox as security in a distressed sale it aint worth a lot

The best guess is Rangers got 60% to 65% of the face value of the tickets so they gave ticketus approx £48 mill of tickets

If Rangers had not dealt with ticketus they would for the next 4 years be getting 12m in each year

the sold these rights and are getting an up front payment of 7m to 7.5m

This is now referring to your claim that this could be helping Rangers...

"How on earth they can then re lend that at a profit is beyond me but if your friend can provide details of this investment myself and a lot of friends will put every penny we have into it"


I would advise him to do so as well as nowhere has there ever been such a amazing deal.

I have kept it simple but not even getting into the possibilities that Whyte via wavetower are charging Rangers to reborrow their own money adding interest and fees to this or that they seem to have spirited away in excess of £15 / 16 million

the money should have gone straight into rangers bank account, not whytes so why did it go into wavetowers is a big question

The suggestion of lendings between wavetower and rangers being arranged in rangers favour is ludicrous

It's not an investment. It doesn't generate money out of nothing. It basically moves money from one place to another. It would require Whyte to actually want to help the club though. Theoretically, and I stress that it's all theoretically, if Rangers lent the money to Wavetower at 10% interest, and borrowed it back at no interest. That would mean, unless I'm being completely retarded here, that Rangers would show up as having £30M+ in debt while actually recieving a "profit" from wavetower. Sending the annual fee one way, while recieving the fee + 10% back.

Hence why the interest rates intrigue me.

I have kept it simple but not even getting into the possibilities that Whyte via wavetower are charging Rangers to reborrow their own money adding interest and fees to this or that they seem to have spirited away in excess of £15 / 16 million

In which case the man is a crook who is ensuring that he profits from a Rangers bankruptcy.

In all likelyhood he is taking money out of the club. However, it's not the only possibility.

Your theory about lending and borrowing back would mean everyone would be millionaires. It's just not plausible, the last three sentences of your post is bang on though.

Ki wrote:Your theory about lending and borrowing back would mean everyone would be millionaires. It's just not plausible, the last three sentences of your post is bang on though.

What? No it wouldn't. It has nothing to do with generating money. It has to do with moving money from one place to another. The only reason Rangers profit is because Whyte's company wants it to. Borrowing over the odds and lending back at no interest would only take money from that company and pump into Rangers.

It's basically exactly the same thing you're saying is going on, only with Rangers having the beneficial interest rate.

So, Basically Craig Whyte is a genius in the way that he has moved it around business's i.e. making a profit. And your theories about him being a crook, us going bust etc are starting to shrivel away, so the Daily Rhebel is back making up stories to try and turn the fans against Whyte, make him look bad and force him out. Though this is not working as we will get through this tax case, a bigger, a stronger and more financially secure. All pointing to what Whyte has done i.e. checking rates and making us a profit.

MY MAIN POINT:

It took Whyte over a year to finally secure ownership of Rangers, do you think he's stupid (waits for immature reply). He has obviously, both him and his lawyers, scrutinised these paper, cases etc to the finest bone and realised that there is a big chance that it will work out in our favour or not as bad as it seemed in the first place. Why would a man buy a business that he knew he was going to lose money on? Both him, his lawyers and the fans firmly believe that we are wrongly accused and therefore will win the tax case. We will sort out the wage bill etc and move forward. While on the other hand, Celtic are blowing money like it's going out of fashion. Without Desmond and previously McCann, you'd be under many, many years ago. You owe so much to them it's unbelievable and if one day they come knocking, simply you are ... fucked! You probably lose £20million a season due to wages etc and having not won the league, which generates just under £1million, you are in even deeper shit. Another point, we have won another 8-10 league titles, financially wise in selling Jelavic. Basically, we will come out the other end of this. And Craig Whyte will succeed at Rangers, unless bought out. WE ARE CRAIG WHYTE, WE ARE RANGERS!

Jelavić7|EFC wrote:So, Basically Craig Whyte is a genius in the way that he has moved it around business's i.e. making a profit. And your theories about him being a crook, us going bust etc are starting to shrivel away, so the Daily Rhebel is back making up stories to try and turn the fans against Whyte, make him look bad and force him out. Though this is not working as we will get through this tax case, a bigger, a stronger and more financially secure. All pointing to what Whyte has done i.e. checking rates and making us a profit.

MY MAIN POINT:

It took Whyte over a year to finally secure ownership of Rangers, do you think he's stupid (waits for immature reply). He has obviously, both him and his lawyers, scrutinised these paper, cases etc to the finest bone and realised that there is a big chance that it will work out in our favour or not as bad as it seemed in the first place. Why would a man buy a business that he knew he was going to lose money on? Both him, his lawyers and the fans firmly believe that we are wrongly accused and therefore will win the tax case. We will sort out the wage bill etc and move forward. While on the other hand, Celtic are blowing money like it's going out of fashion. Without Desmond and previously McCann, you'd be under many, many years ago. You owe so much to them it's unbelievable and if one day they come knocking, simply you are ... fucked! You probably lose £20million a season due to wages etc and having not won the league, which generates just under £1million, you are in even deeper shit. Another point, we have won another 8-10 league titles, financially wise in selling Jelavic. Basically, we will come out the other end of this. And Craig Whyte will succeed at Rangers, unless bought out. WE ARE CRAIG WHYTE, WE ARE RANGERS!

You can make a ton of money on a business that is doomed to failed though... quite a lot.

Laurencio wrote:

Ki wrote:Your theory about lending and borrowing back would mean everyone would be millionaires. It's just not plausible, the last three sentences of your post is bang on though.

What? No it wouldn't. It has nothing to do with generating money. It has to do with moving money from one place to another. The only reason Rangers profit is because Whyte's company wants it to. Borrowing over the odds and lending back at no interest would only take money from that company and pump into Rangers.

It's basically exactly the same thing you're saying is going on, only with Rangers having the beneficial interest rate.

The point you have missed is right back at the start .. by securitisng the ticket sales via ticketus rangers have already borrowed the money at sky high rates

to get back to evens they would have to MAKE a profit of 10 MILLION pounds plus to cover the loss on the face value of the season tickets PLUS as the sales are front loaded, so is the vat and so they need to make another 6 MILLION pounds to cover the requireent to make that payment of course wave tower will invoice them with vat so each june they will possibly have a nice set off on the vat bill but they are overdue on that payment by the sounds of it

or again even more simple

Rangers are getting 60% of the face value of their tickets losing 40%

if they lend all that 60% to wave tower and get an impressive 10% interest back that only gets them back to 66% of the original face value of the season tickets and loses them the use of the money

so they lose 34% of money witht his two part deal

DOHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!! Can you see how you're wrong now?




----------------

As for you Jela, I sincerely hope you're trolling.

He hasnt spent a penny on Rangers, after promising to pay off their debt, it's YOU, the fans that have effectively paid for the sale of the club. Now you're in EVEN MORE debt. £42 million of it, with a tax case which will have Rangers on the receiving end of a £50m bill!!

Only you could put a positive spin on all this. I highly advise you sign up to a Rangers forum, the penny has dropped over there but for some reason you've been left behind.

Who actually gives a fuck.....

I'm now being serious mate, lets be civilised.

All this information which you claim to hold, is gathered from 1 newspaper, the daily record. What exactly does this prove? How do you know that this isn't a load of bullshit, to sell newspapers? Yes, maybe we are in debt. But the record were claiming up to £100million of debts, i.e. exaggerating. I just hope that you respond calmly and civilised. Rather than launching a hate attempt on Whyte, with caps lock.

In the words of Craig Whyte, "This is a muck-raking exercise".

Craig whyte is so tight
Doesn't pay his tax and really isn't bright
Jela wrote a load of shit and you're sure it can't be right
He's shiteeeeeeee

Craig Whyte

Available on Itunes

Fonseca wrote:Craig whyte is so tight
Doesn't pay his tax and really isn't bright
Jela wrote a load of shit and you're sure it can't be right
He's shiteeeeeeee

Craig Whyte

Available on Itunes

Fantastically thought out, thanks for that. Really mature and constructive.

If I were you, I'd be more worried about your own club rather than mine.

Jela can you post like this more often? I don't mind you when your actually on topic.

Jelavić7|EFC wrote:

Fonseca wrote:Craig whyte is so tight
Doesn't pay his tax and really isn't bright
Jela wrote a load of shit and you're sure it can't be right
He's shiteeeeeeee

Craig Whyte

Available on Itunes

Fantastically thought out, thanks for that. Really mature and constructive.

If I were you, I'd be more worried about your own club rather than mine.

Oh you want to be serious now?

Puss

Mr. Whyte, your bank manager is on the phone.

Spoiler:

Are you a member of any Rangers forums Jela?

Mason_Inzaghi wrote:Jela can you post like this more often? I don't mind you when your actually on topic.

I can and I have done before, though when I do, it's the usual ... fag, pussy, jela cunt etc etc. So, plain and simply, what the fuck is the point? Therefore, I shall continue respond in the way that I am spoken to and until that changes, I shall continue to do so.

*queue the fag, lo lo lo etc remarks*

Ki wrote:

Laurencio wrote:

What? No it wouldn't. It has nothing to do with generating money. It has to do with moving money from one place to another. The only reason Rangers profit is because Whyte's company wants it to. Borrowing over the odds and lending back at no interest would only take money from that company and pump into Rangers.

It's basically exactly the same thing you're saying is going on, only with Rangers having the beneficial interest rate.

The point you have missed is right back at the start .. by securitisng the ticket sales via ticketus rangers have already borrowed the money at sky high rates

to get back to evens they would have to MAKE a profit of 10 MILLION pounds plus to cover the loss on the face value of the season tickets PLUS as the sales are front loaded, so is the vat and so they need to make another 6 MILLION pounds to cover the requireent to make that payment of course wave tower will invoice them with vat so each june they will possibly have a nice set off on the vat bill but they are overdue on that payment by the sounds of it

or again even more simple

Rangers are getting 60% of the face value of their tickets losing 40%

if they lend all that 60% to wave tower and get an impressive 10% interest back that only gets them back to 66% of the original face value of the season tickets and loses them the use of the money

so they lose 34% of money witht his two part deal

DOHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!! Can you see how you're wrong now?

This ticket thing is just weird. Are you telling me that Rangers gave ticketus the rights to sell the tickets in exchange for a loan of 60% their value?

Or did they simply borrow using season tickets as security, so that 40% is in fact their loss if they default on the loan?

It's basically like an overdraft, because we need to make payments before we receive tv rights etc, we are getting the money from then a couple of months earlier, then pay them back when we receive it. This structure has been in place long before Whyte took over and he has admitted to doing it, for one season, i.e. taking it a year at a time. Not a 4-5 year play as the NEWSPAPERS are touting it i.e. a load of shite. Therefore, the interest might be 10% or something, it's a fucking overdraft, it's not gonna be 40% or something for a couple of months.

Taken wide of the mark and exaggerated as usual.

Ki wrote:Are you a member of any Rangers forums Jela?

Are you? Or are you a lurker?