hellbhoy Posted November 14, 2012 Share Posted November 14, 2012 Rangers PLC was not established in 1872. Four men had a wet dream ring a bell ? and that stupid song and the Rangers were born ! And aren't you being picky tonight dear ! I know it wasn't a PLC in 1872,it was a club and then a club & company in 1899. Your just being a WUM-IN tonight 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dave.j Posted November 14, 2012 Share Posted November 14, 2012 1352934530[/url]' post='6807652']Season tickets going up, obviously dependant on gaining promotions - fair enough 33% players wages. A long hard slog and no magic wand, i hope we're going to invest in a proper scouting and coaching network. We can't go back to the bad old days of spend, spend and spend but i wonder how much the board members will be taking out of the club. A lot depends on how accurate this Cenkos stuff is i suppose. I would guest it's pretty accurate, especially if they are including an interview with Green within the tv news item relating to the web item. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dave.j Posted November 14, 2012 Share Posted November 14, 2012 1352935023[/url]' post='6807669']When has it never been? Maybe you're getting your forums mixed up. This is P&B and neither RM nor FollowFollow. Look at the top of your browser to remind you where you're actually posting. Tedi, Bennett, Bendarroch? Help me out guys, would you. He's not toeing the party line. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bennett Posted November 14, 2012 Share Posted November 14, 2012 I hope so to, with 33% of a projected 46M turnover going on wages, which is not unreasonable since we turned over 54M prior, where is the rest of the money going? I doubt our operating costs will = £30M I'm assuming that 33% is for the playing staff and not including backroom/other staff, some more information on it would be nice. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hellbhoy Posted November 14, 2012 Share Posted November 14, 2012 The word BY followed on the next line THE RT HON LORD NIMMO SMITH makes it very clear that he put his name to this document Are you stupid? Thick as FOOK Tedi 5 stars :lol: :lol: classic Can't you comprehend ? it is headed by Lord Nimmo NUMPTY now follow and read it again stupid and put together THE SPL COMMISSIONS and is HELD BY LORD NIMMO who agreed to chair it as the SPL has asked to rule on the document laid out on the website And it's from the official SPL website dafty ! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bennett Posted November 14, 2012 Share Posted November 14, 2012 Thick as FOOK Tedi 5 stars :lol: :lol: classic Can't you comprehend ? it is headed by Lord Nimmo NUMPTY now follow and read it again stupid and put together THE SPL COMMISSIONS and is HELD BY LORD NIMMO who agreed to chair it as the SPL has asked to rule on the document laid out on the website And it's from the official SPL website dafty ! Tedi has shown you more respect and gave you more time than i would have. He's explained it to you many times with the patience of a saint while i'd have told you to do one long ago. -1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dave.j Posted November 14, 2012 Share Posted November 14, 2012 1352934816[/url]' post='6807663']I hope so to, with 33% of a projected 46M turnover going on wages, which is not unreasonable since we turned over 54M prior, where is the rest of the money going? I doubt our operating costs will = £30M God only knows! So based on the 46m, wages will be about 15 mil, double what it is just now in the 3rd. But why does the share presentation say that of the projected 25mil, 10 of that will go towards wages. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Kincardine Posted November 14, 2012 Share Posted November 14, 2012 Four men had a wet dream ring a bell ? and that stupid song and the Rangers were born ! And aren't you being picky tonight dear ! I know it wasn't a PLC in 1872,it was a club and then a club & company in 1899. Your just being a WUM-IN tonight Of course you did. This is why you used the phrase, "Rangers PLC est 1872". We existed before we were a PLC and have done after that PLC was wound up. I have said this many times before. Pretty-much every club in Scotland exists as a club irrespective of legal status. This is also true of Celtic and is the gist of what Lord Nimmo Smith said in that part of his judgement as summarised by Paul McConville. I do not know why posters on here find this in the least bit contentious. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThirdrockfromtheSon Posted November 14, 2012 Share Posted November 14, 2012 1352926606[/url]' post='6807110']It's the best they've got under the current situation... There was a few on here saying liquidation couldn't happen. When liquidation meant the death of the club... They got liquidated... Posters disappeared. Then new posters appeared saying that it was the company that got liquidated. That the club is still the club and they still have the titles... Expect them to disappear when HMRC start making demands for money owed and when titles start getting stripped because they are "still the same club"... Then a whole new gang will appear, you know the ones... I've been sitting watching and now feel its time to post. I think Bearwithme and No8 are the only original posters on this thread. I think Bennett stuck to the old firm forum until they got accepted into the 3rd. I may be wrong. Don't forget Youngsy -he's a decent guy/poster f**k Bennett, Bendarroch - diddy posters. Tedi isn't all bad. Dhenboy is a w**k and a !!!!! Repeater. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hellbhoy Posted November 14, 2012 Share Posted November 14, 2012 Tedi has shown you more respect and gave you more time than i would have. He's explained it to you many times with the patience of a saint while i'd have told you to do one long ago. There ya go L'oreal or No'real because you deserve a reddie for a crap post 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dave.j Posted November 14, 2012 Share Posted November 14, 2012 Read the article you posted, he tells you what the wages are for this season, he also tells you what the turnover will be, why are you asking me? I'm asking you because it's a discussion, that's what we do, or at least try to do... So again... If they are saying that wages will never be more than 33% of turnover. And turnover is 46 million. Wages will be 15 million. Double this seasons. And 10 million of the share issue is going towards this 15 mill est wage... That means only 5 million of the 46 turnover will go towards wages. What the hell is he doing with the other 41 mill? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hellbhoy Posted November 14, 2012 Share Posted November 14, 2012 Of course you did. This is why you used the phrase, "Rangers PLC est 1872". We existed before we were a PLC and have done after that PLC was wound up. I have said this many times before. Pretty-much every club in Scotland exists as a club irrespective of legal status. This is also true of Celtic and is the gist of what Lord Nimmo Smith said in that part of his judgement as summarised by Paul McConville. I do not know why posters on here find this in the least bit contentious. The club has changed through the years from birth to death ! 1, It had to change into a company in 1899 or it would have still been an amateur outfit playing to one man and his dog every Sunday.Players where being paid wages and tickets were being sold so it needed to create inside it a finance department to deal with the monies that the club brought in. 2, It then became a PLC but it is still a club that needs a finance department to run it's finances. So all said and done this company shite doesn't wash at all because the finance department of the club that killed it ! RANGERS FINANCE DEPARTMENT & NOT A SEPARATE COMPANY ! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hellbhoy Posted November 14, 2012 Share Posted November 14, 2012 Losing the plot, don't worry I corrected your error YOU IDIOT ! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Kincardine Posted November 15, 2012 Share Posted November 15, 2012 What the hell is he doing with the other 41 mill? If I had a spare £41 million I'd w**k all over it until ma baws were sucked up to my eye sockets. What would you do? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dave.j Posted November 15, 2012 Share Posted November 15, 2012 1352937496[/url]' post='6807777']He does not give a breakdown anywhere in the document from STV (which you posted) of where or what he will use the share money on, he only says that he hopes to raise around 20M Correct, but the presentation document to be used at the roadshow does. Ok say 20 mil... He gives the breakdown of where the share money will be spent as follows... 9 mil towards capex, to repair Ibrox and "one of the worlds most advanced training facilities". 2 mil for "other" property acquisitions. 10 mil for squad development. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dave.j Posted November 15, 2012 Share Posted November 15, 2012 1352937805[/url]' post='6807786']If I had a spare £41 million I'd w**k all over it until ma baws were sucked up to my eye sockets. What would you do? Yeah, pretty similar spending policy, myself. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dave.j Posted November 15, 2012 Share Posted November 15, 2012 1352938767[/url]' post='6807806']He did not make it clear if that 10M would be used for Player purchase or Player wages, I would assume he meant player purchase Maybe! If thats the case, Christ mate, you've got to ask what the hell is going on, when he looks at this seasons squad... And thinks that if they are promoted, to get out the 2nd div would require wages going up to 15 mil plus a 10 mil kitty for transfers!!! Surely to fck McCoist would not need to spend a combined figure of 17 mil in August, to add to this squad to get out the second? Why not invest it elsewhere in the business? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bendarroch Posted November 15, 2012 Share Posted November 15, 2012 Did that spectator article hit a wee nerve tedi? I think redneck is a good comparison for Rangers fans a bunch of narrow minded bigots who believe that they are more true red white n blue than any one else ,Think il call you clampett from now on I'm sure you'll be delighted by equally corrosive responses. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bairnforever1992 Posted November 15, 2012 Share Posted November 15, 2012 He is trying to sell shares, to be honest Rangers may one day get back above £40M turnover, but it wont be in the time frame he projects, aye Charlie is a salesman A salesman from hell, he would be brilliant in Rogue Traders. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Kincardine Posted November 15, 2012 Share Posted November 15, 2012 Did that spectator article hit a wee nerve tedi? I think redneck is a good comparison for Rangers fans a bunch of narrow minded bigots who believe that they are more true red white n blue than any one else ,Think il call you clampett from now on The article is shite and The Speccie has really gone down hill over this past couple of years. I stopped buying it ages ago but my ex took out a subscription and used to pass her copy on to me. I asked her to stop doing that because it was consistently full of dross. Thanks for confirming my opinion! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.