Joey Jo Jo Junior Shabadoo
-
Posts
8,500 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
11
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Store
Posts posted by Joey Jo Jo Junior Shabadoo
-
-
I'll accept this £65 million overall liability
0 -
Still no breakdown then?
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.
0 -
So still guessing about the £65M
If you know what the £65M is then post the breakdown, you have failed to explain it or list despite your claims.
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
0 -
You've taken the full creditors total of £37,938 million and added it to the net debt of £27,074 million, giving you the £65 million, totally wrong. There is no sum of £65 million in this balance sheet and i'm thinking that you have no idea how to work out the net debt. Sorry to say you're very much mistaken on this. However as you believe you're correct on this £65 million what was the reduction from this sum that Whyte made.
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.
0 -
Oh yes it is there, you just have not looked hard enough.
So you claim things are not part of the £65M you quoted but you cannot give me a breakdown of the £65M, I am beginning to think you are guessing.
As for your last comment, simmer fool.
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.
0 -
Sure after you give me the breakdowns I asked for.
Not there then, is it? I've referenced everything, so up yours.
0 -
Read the accounts again and show where the sum of £65 million liability is mentioned. The full liability to creditors was £37,938 million before taking into account cash in hand and any equivalents, showing the net debt at £27 million.
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?
0 -
I never mentioned 65M or 56M, you did
Please provide an exact break down of either the 56M or the 65M
You said total debt (please do not make me quote you) the total debt is clearly stated on page 1 at 27.1M, 18.1M is not (as you put it) just a fraction of 27.1M
Did you miss the part about max tax liability?
£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?
0 -
I've went through those accounts and discovered what you've done. You've added the creditors debt to the net debt to get this £65 million you kept banging on about. Totally wrong.
To get the net debt level you add all debt together then cash in hand or cash eqivalents are added together, subtract cash in hand and equivalents total from creditors debt level, in this case on 30th June 2010 the creditors debt level was £37,938 million, cash in hand or available cash equivalents totalled £10,804 million, giving the net debt as £27,074 million on 30th June 2010.
So most certainly Craig Whyte increased the debt by a very significant amount, £56 million at the formalisation of the liquidation figure, not including the EBT case liability potential. And you were telling someone on here they didn't understand accounts. Tut-tut.
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.
0 -
Of course it went up from £18 million, commonsense tells you that. He took out £27 million from Ticketus to pay off the £18 million bank debt but that amount was still applied to the PLC plus an additional £9 million, there's the increase. Add to that the P.A.Y.E. and N.I. non payments, there is another increase, that is indisputable. When the liquidation total was formalised it included the debenture bondholders sum total, just under £7 million plus other debts. There is the approx £56 million. I'm afraid you're well out on this. So can you explain how taking out £27 million and withholding approx £21 million due to HMRC doesn't increase a debt.
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.
0 -
Let's look at it this way. A person takes over a PLC by borrowing £27 million from a finance company in order to clear the existing bank debt of £18 million. Straight away the original amount of debt of £18 million is still there, plus an additional £9 million. That debt is now £27 million, add to that £21 million unpaid P.A.Y.E and N.I.
That's an overall debt of £48 million plus whatever additional debt he added, off the top of my head i couldn't say. So you have the original debt of £18 million plus £9 million plus £21 million. From those three figures he added £30 million to the debt, nothing was cleared, all he did was add to any existing debt. The £56 million was the sum at liquidation,not including the EBT liability.
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:
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<Craig Whyte
Do I win £5?
0 -
It's like Hellboy on LSD
Look it's been pointed out to you by many people that under Whyte the debt increased. There are no if's or but's about this, it's a simple fact which can't be ignored or deflected.
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.
0 -
The debt was simply switched to ticketus and increased to £27m, not mention withholding payments of NI and PAYE etc among other things.
Please put a bit more effort in to your posts, oh great debunker...
That's what I wrote. I just mentioned that using Bank Debt as a comparative to Total debt is erroneous.
0 -
He increased the debt to £56 million with the Ticketus deal and by withholding the P.A.Y.E and N.I. Or are we not counting that £27 milllion to Ticketus and £21 million or so to HMRC? Edit too add, he may have paid the £18 million from the Ticketus deal but that still impinged on the overall debt by another £9 million.
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?
0 -
Perhaps you should read the front page again.
£27.1m was the figure for total debt, it is right on the 1st page.
The potential liabilities include £36.5M potential tax bill, which of course turned out not to be a liability at all, you cannot treat this as debt, it was however a noose round company's neck, which seriously affected the sale of the club.
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.
0 -
The reason why no one would buy it outright was down to the EBT case. At the time of Whyte taking over we had a bank debt of £18 millon which was being well maintained and was coming down year on year. Within a 9 month period Whyte had increased the debt to £56 million, not including operating costs or the EBT ca
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.
0 -
Rangers didnt have massive debts before whyte. That is a media myth...Rangers were something like 18 million in debt to the bank which they were paying back while still remaining successful on the park.
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
0 -
So you use the word 'cuntpany' and expect a reasonable reply?
To be honest it was a rhetorical question, but yes. Yes I do.
0 -
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?
0 -
We are talking about the ibrox boardroom here, why do you think "best practice" is involved?
So, no, he doesn't "need" to be non exec.
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.
0 -
Question....
Why does a company with a multimillion worldwide fan base, get away with a non executive chairman?
I know he doesn't have the experience for the full time version, but he doesn't have the experience for the non exec either.
MM was a non exec as well.
Not a very important role it would seem.....
You do realise that best practice dictates that the Chairman has to be a Non-Executive?
Silly question...
0 -
'She called me a PC thug.'
'I've been called a greasy thug too, Lisa, and it never stops hurting.
Here's what we're gonna do: Grease ourselves up real good and trash that place with a baseball bat.'
0 -
If I'm ever on the people's chariot, I move when a spare seat is available, a wee bit more space and no nosey c**t reading your twitter
People's Chariot? One refers to it as a Scum Shovel.
0 -
I'm led to believe that it's a sign to show everything is OK (I.e. there are no neds or junkies tearing up the bus)
0
Procycling thread
in All Other Sports
Posted
£5 each way on Bertie at 16/1. Let's hope he had steak for dinner last night.