pollymac
-
Posts
3,088 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Store
Posts posted by pollymac
-
-
Why would you even mention ip addresses?
Not to mention that unless Div et al block specific IP addresses, you can use one IP for many accounts.
0 -
I wonder when Sevco's first VAT returns are due.
0 -
Quite glad this thread's still going; hopefully things will get interesting again in the next few weeks.
0 -
0
-
re ST sales - you can go on the Celtic site and check total and availability by section. Someone on CQN done this a while back (a few days after renewal deadline mid-May) and totted up sales of the plebian sections to 39,000 or thereabouts.
0 -
Im not sure what you're trying to say.
There were 3 scenarios in the CVA. It being accepted (Green pays £8.5m), it being rejected and the assets sold to a newco (Green pays £5.5m) or full liquidation (where the property, just the property mind you, is valued at £4.5m).
We are going down the newco road, until someone challenges it. But, reading between the lines of HMRCs statement, it doesnt look like they are going to.
I thought it was quite clear. If they try to sell the assets from the going concern that is Rangers FC for £5.5m then they are very much open to any number of legal challenges, not least: why have player values been written down to £0, where, even the dodgy deals struck in March has them written down to around £10m.
HMRC are not the only creditor here and even if they were, they have not said that they'll not challenge it, just that it will now be forced to go down a different route. This may indeed mean that it'll go down the 'second' route as proposed in the CVA doc, or it may mean that there's nary a snowball's chance in hell of it going down the £5.5m route.
0 -
No. Now the sale to Green goes ahead and the assets are sold to the newco. Then the oldco is liquidated
The problem with that is that the assets are sold from a going concern, albeit one that's unlikely to go for much longer, to some other entity. In such a case, the assets cannot be undersold prior to liquidation of the (previously) going concern, lest they rouse the wrath of Hector. Again.
This is a very different scenario from the (not really a) going concern being liquidated, where the playing assets are no longer assets at all ergo much lower asset value (£5.5m).
0 -
Reading between the lines, it looks like HMRC are happy for the club to continue, but fully intend to pursue Whyte/Murray and whoever else as much as they can.
To be honest, thats a pretty fair minded attitude
But this isnt the liquidation scenario, its the newco. Under that column, there is a value against the players registrations.
Moreover the liquidation route does not prejudice the proposed sale of the club. This sale can take place either through a CVA or a liquidation.Liquidation will enable a sale of the football assets to be made to a new company, thereby ensuring that football will continue at Ibrox.
^^he seems to think otherwise
0 -
Surely they get no transfer money for players now, as they are essentially made redundant in liquidation, and can just walk away?
Player registrations go to the SFA, hence no asset value in the liquidation column of the CVA doc.
Other assets cannot be undersold though. And players can be sold between now and 'then' (or could have been sold - no club would want to pay out cash now surely??)
0 -
I see that Duff and Phelps are saying now they will proceed with the sale of Ranegrs for £5.5m to Green's SEVCO company.
I don't know much about the wheelings and deelings of business, but surely now they have to bascically asccept the the most money for each component of the club ensuring the creditors get the best price back.
And if that means each player is sold seperately, and each brock of ibrox is sold seperately so be it.
So how can they say that they will just sell the entire show for £5.5m ??
Aye, HMRC have rules for that kind of thing...
Would've gotten away with it were it not for those meddling rules clicky type thing
0 -
fire on chaps - next post is 20,000
0 -
Thon big hoose still open?
ffs.
0 -
incidentally you have quoted 2 different figures over Dermot's so called one and only 'tainted@ investment in Celtic
Have I?
One and only? Oh dear.
Deflection? Yes, you have been.
0 -
So your accepting that 50% percent of Celtics probity including purchase of players on an annual basis is Desmond money(and all that goes with it) glad we settled that.
Wow, that's some leap.
He invests a sum of money over a fifteen year period equivalent to around half a single years turnover (I looked it up, its actually a third) but somehow 50% of Celtics budget is down to Desmond.
Astonishing.
0 -
Post economic melt down there are more public inquiry's in the ROI than you can shake a stick at.
but in part answer there will be criminal inquiry's/prosecutions to varying aspects at some time.
whats the term proper and fitting person ?
Proper and fitting?
0 -
...which was my point: moneys added to a club that couldnt be relied on again.
A bit of obfuscation is always good for an agenda though.
0 -
Regarding Dermott buying/cheating success for Celtic, I understand his input to the club amounts to around half a years turnover.
Compare and contrast with the figures I listed earlier.
0 -
ah like rangers tax avoidance you mean?
You mean evasion?
0 -
Is this Groundhog Day? By Dermott bribing Haughey to give him over priced Government contracts, allowing him to build up enough wealth to pump millions into Celtic Football Club.
Were they overpriced, or is that wishful thinking on your part?
Presumably these people have been jailed for this fraud?
0 -
You do understand that tax avoidance is entirely legal, don't you?
Not sure what your next bit has to do with anything
0 -
In what way were they ripped off?
0 -
And John Reid!!!!!
Yes, you help make my point :-)
0 -
We do call Craig Whyte that; Haughey, I have no opinion on and don't care much for Desmond either.
Aww, did I ruin it for you?
0 -
Penny wise vs Pound foolish. Celtic were VERY fortunate enough to have Fergus McCann come in and bring some financial sanity to the place.
The famous story about him and the late Tommy Burns over a bidding war with Rangers (and McCann being something of the wee boy calling out the truth of the King's new clothes) encapsulates the whole tribal based "oneupmanship" lunacy that was certain to end in ruin for one or both of them.
It's worth pointing out that since 2000, Rangers business did not grow at all. In fact, it can easily be argued that it shrunk - CL payments went massively up, yet turnover remained largely static. In fact, in recent non-CL years it had decreased from non-CL years in 02 & 03 by a few million. In contrast, during the same period, Celtic's income had pretty much doubled.
I'm not sure who it was, possibly that former director Adams?? who said that the Rangers board was filled with guys there for the social aspect and never had much input in the running of the club.
Celtic appointed guys from British-American Tobacco, The Bank of England, etc.
Even so, had Celtic maintained the spend of Barnes/Dalglish and early O'Neill, they too would be facing meltdown.
0
:lol: 
Big Rangers Administration/Liquidation Thread - All chat here!
in Celtic v Rangers, Rangers v Celtic
Posted
90 months since I posted [this], and it's as relevant now as it was back then. OPM to the rescue (or not).
Plus ca change, etc.