Joey Jo Jo Junior Shabadoo

Omitted. 100%. I bet you can't work out why either. This is from the original post: Seriously, WTF?

To be fair to Bennett you just made that bit up. There is no guarantee that figure is inclusive of the IPO money.

Passed my final Professional Accountancy exam. No more exams to do. Ever. Beer tonight, methinks.

This = amazing. This + baking sunshine = fucking amazing. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HGvcdr1A0p0

£5 each way on Bertie at 16/1. Let's hope he had steak for dinner last night.

There is absolutely zero need for me to point you to the same thing I have referenced more than once in the last couple of pages. You must have the accounts open anyway since you are going to refer me to the bit that says the potential tax liability is included.

Exactly how taking numbers straight off the accounts is guessing I don't know? I have told you exactly where to go on the accounts for a breakdown. I have told you that there is nothing in the accounts alluding to a £30+million potential tax liability. I have told you that in each section of the breakdown there isn't a single number that could cover the potential tax liability. I haven't guessed on anything. As I said earlier why would liabilities be published in the accounts not be liabilities (unless they are contingent liabilities which would be mentioned in the notes)? I've lifted it all from the Rangers accounts. In black & white. Yet you mysteriously seem unable to tell me where the accounts tell everyone that the potential tax liablity is included. I think we can all draw our own conclusions from that. ETA: to clarify the liabilities line

No I haven't. I've taken Creditors due within a year and added it to Creditors due outwith a year. To give, well, Total Creditors.

It is definitely not part of the £65million. If it was it would be mentioned as a contigent liability in the notes to the accounts. As I have already explained and referenced. If it was in the accounts it would be included in a liability to 'Social Security And Other Taxes' which it also isn't. The breakdown of the liabilities is in notes 15 and 16. Which I have already referenced and explained. Note that none of the individual figures in the breakdown come anywhere close to the size of the potential tax liability. If you are eager to prove me wrong then please point out where the tax liabilty is. I'm not overly happy to be proven wrong but it is the only way I learn.

Not there then, is it? I've referenced everything, so up yours.

No. Net Debt is note 25 on Page 35. Cash in hand is £3.3m in overdraft. Creditors are Note 15 and 16 which is £65million in total. Unless we are now saying that we should only count stuff that is due in over a year?

£65 million is the liability figure straight out of the accounts p.28 of the accounts. Which I have already referenced. £56 million was the figure Youngsy provided. First of all 18.1M is a fraction of 27.1M, Two thirds. Secondly I have explained on umpteen occasions why ignoring creditors and other liabilities is a complete fallacy, and the £27.1M does ignore these figures per note 25. I did miss the part about max tax liability. Would you care to share?

FFS. I haven't done anything. If you want to continue on believing that somehow in your little magic happy land that creditors and other liabilities don't count towards how much Rangers owed then feel free. All I said is per the accounts £65 million is what Rangers owed. You then tried to compare an £18million debt (which was part of the total amount owed) with the total amount owed at liquidation. This is completely erroneous. Utterly false. In-fucking-correct. Blabber on about bank debt, net debt and cash equivalents all you like, it doesn't change the fact the per Rangers last accounts they owed somewhere in the region of £65million. The fact that everyone was hypnotised by all the shite about 'controllable bank debt and falling net debt' may have been another reason why the Rangers supporters sleepwalked straight into the massive shitfest that followed. PS: Net/Total Debt is an accounting term that shouldn't be used in isolation. Very easily manipulated. e.g. Don't pay any creditors for a month before year end and stick the cash in the bank. This lowers the Net Debt figure at year end but doesn't effect your overall liabilities. By your reasoning the amount owed would come down even though you haven't paid creditors for a month, which of course is utter nonsense.

Because money was going towards other things? Allow me to explain: At takeover: Total Liabilities £60million: £18m Bank Debt, £3m HMRC Liability, £39m the rest. After Takeover: Total Liablities £56million: £27m Ticketus, £21m HMRC, £8m the rest. Very simply if you get £9m surplus from Ticketus and withold money from HMRC you can use it to pay alot of other stuff off.

All I am saying is that Ranger's total debt did not go up from £18million, far from it. It was already way, way, more than that. Per the accounts. If the total liabilities were £56m at the end, then it is not a million miles from where it was when he took over. And I managed to find this: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-2126212/Rangers-crisis-Craig-Whyte-claims-Rangers-better-shape.html <<<<<<<<<<<<<<Craig Whyte Do I win £5?

All I have written is correct. Lifted straight from the accounts. With references so you don't even need to go through the whole thing. No ifs or buts. Just because you don't understand doesn't mean it isn't true.

That's what I wrote. I just mentioned that using Bank Debt as a comparative to Total debt is erroneous.

I don't know the breakdown of the £56million. I think I got that figure off of you. All I am saying is that the level of debt that Craig Whyte bought into was over £60 million per the accounts, so how could he possibly have increased it by £38million as claimed by you earlier? I sense once I get a link to explain the breakdown of the £56 million I am going to look like a right twat though... Any takers?

OK, here we go: The £27.1m (note 25) includes bank debt, finance loans etc. It does not include other liabilities like trade creditors, taxes and accruals which count towards the total amount the company owe. If the company weren't due to pay it, it wouldn't be sitting on the balance sheet. So the £65 million holds when in comparison with the £56million. That was the total amount Rangers owed at the end, not only the financial debts. In those statements there is no account made of the potential tax bill, so I am afraid your last sentence is incorrect. P.35 Note 27 'Contingent Assets/Liabilities' only mentions a possible £100,000 inflow with no mention whatsoever of a potential tax bill.

This was debunked ages ago. See my previous edit. When Whyte took over BANK debt was £18million. This figure reduced to £0 while Craig Whyte was there, as he securitised Season Tickets instead. The £56 million figure you refer to is directly comparable with the £65million from the accounts I have linked. So therefore it looks as though he reduced debt in the period after he took over. One thing he definitely did not do was increase debt from £18 million to £56 million. And since I have explained this before in reply to you (I have very few rep points so the post in question was very easy to track down (#111314)) I have to assume it is deliberate misrepresentation of the facts on your part.

On the contrary, the £18million 'bank' debt was only a fraction of Ranger's total debts but was the figure banded about the press in order to sugar coat a perilous financial situation. Check the last accounts before Whyte took over, it is all in there. ETA: http://www.isdx.com/infostore/Company-Accounts/RangersFootball/rangers2010.pdf p.28 Total Liabilities £65million

To be honest it was a rhetorical question, but yes. Yes I do.

I think it would be nice for someone to explain exactly why Craig Whyte didn't just buy the 'club' off the cuntpany in the first place? SInce the 'club' is a separable entity, yes?

I think we can guarantee your reaction had he been announced as an executive Chairman: links to Sarbanes Oxley and the Combined Code aplenty, highlighting the fact that having an executive at Chairman isn't best practice.