A BIDDING war is expected for control of Rangers after a court ruling left the door open for administrators to tear up the four-year season ticket deal.
Lord Hodge's opinion in the Court of Session leaves the way clear for Duff & Phelps to renege on the deal with Ticketus – which raised more than £20 million to finance Craig Whyte's takeover of Rangers – if it is in the interest of the creditors of the club.
Lord Hodge said courts "would be slow to disrupt" the administration process by considering any legal move to force the Ticketus deal to be honoured.
The administrators, who told Lord Hodge they believe the deal struck with Ticketus and Whyte is illegal, could get more money from the sale of Rangers, providing greater value for creditors such as the taxman, if there was no deal.
Buyers are believed to have either stayed away from bidding, or devalued the Ibrox club because of the Ticketus deal, which gives the agency 60% of all ticket sales from Ibrox over the next four years, worth more than £30m.
Lord Hodge's rulings will not just speed up the sale of the club, but could also bring in new bidders, the administrators believe.
Former Rangers director Paul Murray's Blue Knights, Sale Sharks owner Brian Kennedy, Chicago-based Prometheus Capital Partners and an unidentified British consortium, have made conditional offers.
A Middle East consortium, a Singapore group fronted by Glasgow-based businessman
Shazad Bakhsh and New York-based financiers Fortress are understood to be keeping a watching brief.
Paul Clark, joint administrator, said: "We welcome the decisions announced by Lord Hodge and view them as a significant step towards clarifying the future for Rangers Football Club.
"Lord Hodge has made it clear the Ticketus arrangements do not mean Ticketus has property or real rights over seats at the stadium or, indeed, the proceeds from the sale of future season tickets."
Duff & Phelps is now planning to create a shortlist of bids and said it expected the decision to have a "significant bearing on the proposals put forward by bidders to date".
However, London-based Ticketus believes its bid for Rangers with the Blue Knights, which keeps the ticket deal intact, is in the "best interests of the club".
It said: "With every week that passes, further value is destroyed in the club. To conclude the administration process as soon as possible so that the club can secure its future in the hands of a new owner is in everyone's interest. We feel confident that we can conclude this process more swiftly than other bidders.
"Ticketus has a duty to its investors to protect the investment that it currently has in the club."
If the administrators breach the deal, it is understood that the agency, while an unsecured creditor, would have to chase majority shareholder Craig Whyte for any losses.
And, while Whyte believes he has preferred creditor status with first claim on assets such as Ibrox and Murray Park, the court-appointed administrators believe this is invalid because there is no evidence he put any of his money into the club.
Court papers show the first confirmation that the administrators' legal advisers believe the Ticketus deal with Whyte is illegal on the grounds that it was indirectly providing financial assistance for the acquisition of Rangers shares, contrary to the Companies Act 2006.
Lord Hodge was unable to give guidance on the immediate termination of the Ticketus contract because details of competing bids could not be divulged. However, his full opinion accepted the general principle that the deal could be breached in administration, and if the club is wound up.
He also rejected a move by Ticketus to place a trust over the proceeds of the sale of the tickets, to try to make the deal unassailable, ruling that it had "purely personal contractual rights".
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article