hellbhoy Posted February 6, 2013 Share Posted February 6, 2013 The article posted on here yesterday clearly states that we are already paying an £8.5m leasing agreement. Now it's changing again I never seen or heard of the article and are posting from what Chucky actually said in TALKSPORT about it. So nothings actually changed has it Benny because I'm not quoting from yesterday. And I wouldn't at all be surprised if the stadium and the facilities have been leasedback to the club. It won't affect me or my club Benny ! just yours 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bennett Posted February 6, 2013 Share Posted February 6, 2013 Tedi will not like this according to some bloggers about Chuckies accounting methods is to wait as long as possible before releasing the actual accounts which are usually not very good.So if the accounts are late then it augers badly that the accounts show losses. Another method Chucky uses to hide the debts is offsetting the balance sheet to the shareholders to show that things are better than they actually are ie. say the club ran up debts of £10 million in the actual late released August accounts,Chucky will use the current August bank balance sheet from ST's and sponsorship deals to last the current season and put it against the debts in the late accounts.If there is £20 million in the bank then Rangers are £10 million in credit as far as the fans are concerned the way Chucky will phrase it but won't mention the club will run a bigger loss next year if the club is still running up debts.So the club will always be indebted to future revenue that will catch up with it eventually. What is wrong with you? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hellbhoy Posted February 6, 2013 Share Posted February 6, 2013 What is wrong with you? If you must know ! it's the stupid orcs on here irritating me with nonsensicle posts like you posted there ! ya didn't read it or if you did you didn't like it so just decided to post some deflective pish instead. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hellbhoy Posted February 6, 2013 Share Posted February 6, 2013 (edited) SUSSSSSSSSHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH ................. let them be, Chucky will be in Monte Carlo before any of them notice anything is up. Cough cough ..... eh eh Im worried about this warchest Super will get off Sir Charles next year Ah the war chest and £10 million of it ! a few questions there about it ! Chucky phrased it like Ally will have £10 million to spend on players.I'm assuming that this is the total including wages that he can use for the team.Ally may probably have to sell players in order to buy players and that will be his transfer budget for the year. I really can't see why Ally would get £10 million in transfer budgets and also wages on top off that especially when Rangers would still have two years at minimum before reaching the top flight,it just doesn't make sense.This because they are romping the 3rd and will romp the 2nd as well even with the current squad and £10 million to spend to conquer the 1st is just ludicrous. Edited February 6, 2013 by hellbhoy 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hellbhoy Posted February 6, 2013 Share Posted February 6, 2013 I really do not care what it is written in some tic blog by some obsessed jakes, they give me some hilarity that is about it. Everyone of them has been disgraced, they are either proven bigots, IRA sympathisers, Failed lawyers or make up their name to sound more Irish, does it surprise me they spend every minute dreaming up stuff to attack our club with? does it surprise me they get found out and get laughed at? You have the exact same attitude now that your fans had before last February Tedi. It was blogs that first put into the web domain that Rangers were in big tax trouble as far back as 2004 when the web was young and not a lot of people using it. I do not believe all that's in these bloggers sites but I do know when there is an element of truth to them when they give links to their sources and show all the imformation as it is especially the financial details.You can fob them off if you want but it would be better to read the blogs for yourself instead of following the party line and just dismiss it.It's when they say it's been rumoured then I switch off mostly. Some of the bloggers don't give a fcuk about football and post about many subjects on shady deals and people ! and guess what Rangers have that in abundance at the moment and people like to do digging to show to the world the rip off merchants and take the plaudits they showed them up for the world to see. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fotbawmad Posted February 6, 2013 Share Posted February 6, 2013 (edited) Another method Chucky uses to hide the debts is offsetting the balance sheet to the shareholders to show that things are better than they actually are ie. say the club ran up debts of £10 million in the actual late released August accounts,Chucky will use the current August bank balance sheet from ST's and sponsorship deals to last the current season and put it against the debts in the late accounts.If there is £20 million in the bank then Rangers are £10 million in credit as far as the fans are concerned the way Chucky will phrase it but won't mention the club will run a bigger loss next year if the club is still running up debts.So the club will always be indebted to future revenue that will catch up with it eventually. This why you shouldn't read too much into the first set of annual accounts. Ragers fans will no doubt be screaming GIRUY to what they percieve at Timmy doom merchants. Once we've seen the second or third set of accounts it will become much more clear. EDIT: Don't know if anyone heard Tommy Gold's interview with Oli from Ticketus. Don't listen to anything beyond 20 mins in part 2, because he falls into his usual farfetched conspiracy theories. Some things we did find out are... 1. Whyte had control of club before going to Ticketus 2. Minty recommended Ticketus to Whyte 3. Ticketus had corporate and personal guarantees even if club went into liquidation and a team like Rangers took its place whist still playing in a stadium called Ibrox. However. this did not apply under Scots law, like it would have done under UK law. 4. Ticketus looked at buying club with Blue knights, but couldn't see any possible way of making money. Selling off Ibrox or training ground would be politically impossible. Lease is only real way of making money long term. Edited February 6, 2013 by Fotbawmad 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beermonkey Posted February 6, 2013 Share Posted February 6, 2013 This why you shouldn't read too much into the first set of annual accounts. Ragers fans will no doubt be screaming GIRUY to what they percieve at Timmy doom merchants. Once we've seen the second or third set of accounts it will become much more clear. EDIT: Don't know if anyone heard Tommy Gold's interview with Oli from Ticketus. Don't listen to anything beyond 20 mins in part 2, because he falls into his usual farfetched conspiracy theories. Some things we did find out are... 1. Whyte had control of club before going to Ticketus 2. Minty recommended Ticketus to Whyte 3. Ticketus had corporate and personal guarantees even if club went into liquidation and a team like Rangers took its place whist still playing in a stadium called Ibrox. However. this did not apply under Scots law, like it would have done under UK law. 4. Ticketus looked at buying club with Blue knights, but couldn't see any possible way of making money. Selling off Ibrox or training ground would be politically impossible. Lease is only real way of making money long term. You do realise that'll be changed to "Timmy Green,white'n'gold" and dismissed by the orcs for being a sellic name. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The DA Posted February 6, 2013 Share Posted February 6, 2013 ...do you think he'll give a flying fcuk the state of the club is after he has flown the coup ? 'Flown the coup'! Lovely phrase and so appropriate. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
~~~ Posted February 6, 2013 Share Posted February 6, 2013 I really do not care what it is written in some tic blog by some obsessed jakes, they give me some hilarity that is about it. Everyone of them has been disgraced, they are either proven bigots, IRA sympathisers, Failed lawyers or make up their name to sound more Irish, does it surprise me they spend every minute dreaming up stuff to attack our club with? does it surprise me they get found out and get laughed at? And yet Rangers still died 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baxter Parp Posted February 6, 2013 Share Posted February 6, 2013 'Flown the coup'! Lovely phrase and so appropriate. 'cept chickens live in coops, not the overthrow of a government. #nit-pickingparp. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bookies Love Me Posted February 6, 2013 Share Posted February 6, 2013 'cept chickens live in coops, not the overthrow of a government. #nit-pickingparp. He could have meant coup as in cowp (pronounced Kowp) (Scot) a tip for rubbish (courtesy of Chambers Dictionary) Quite appropriate really 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
itzdrk Posted February 6, 2013 Share Posted February 6, 2013 'cept chickens live in coops, not the overthrow of a government. #nit-pickingparp. the new clubs players were running about like them on saturday headless versions of course 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
~~~ Posted February 6, 2013 Share Posted February 6, 2013 I heard Neil Doncaster saying last night when Rangers had been liquidated the SPL share had to be transferred to a new company Why isn't the share with the club instead? If it was with the clubs then no vote would have needed to be taken to allow Newco into the SPL 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ken Fitlike Posted February 6, 2013 Share Posted February 6, 2013 giggle...... I suspect you are doing a bit of teasing..... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stonedsailor Posted February 6, 2013 Share Posted February 6, 2013 I heard Neil Doncaster saying last night when Rangers had been liquidated the SPL share had to be transferred to a new company Why isn't the share with the club instead? If it was with the clubs then no vote would have needed to be taken to allow Newco into the SPL You know the answer to that The definition of a football club is "the legal entity fully responsible for the football team participating in national and international competitions" the company is the club. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
~~~ Posted February 6, 2013 Share Posted February 6, 2013 It just doesn't make sense, why would Oldco Rangers have the share and the power to vote Newco Rangers into the SPL. Is the SPL and scottish football make up of companies now and not football clubs, Could a company like Woolworths hold an SPL share? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
itzdrk Posted February 6, 2013 Share Posted February 6, 2013 It just doesn't make sense, why would Oldco Rangers have the share and the power to vote Newco Rangers into the SPL. Is the SPL and scottish football make up of companies now and not football clubs, Could a company like Woolworths hold an SPL share? aye scotland have a friendly in their stadium tonight actually 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stonedsailor Posted February 6, 2013 Share Posted February 6, 2013 It just doesn't make sense, why would Oldco Rangers have the share and the power to vote Newco Rangers into the SPL. Is the SPL and scottish football make up of companies now and not football clubs, Could a company like Woolworths hold an SPL share? Aye, I think it'd need an 8/4 majority though. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Double Jack D Posted February 6, 2013 Share Posted February 6, 2013 Not allowed in but that really doesn't fit in with the relegated to SFL1 plan does it? The SFL could've let them in at any level the clubs chose. I would argue that allowing them into SFL1 would be more corrupt than allowing them into the SPL. I'm not too impressed they were allowed uncontested into SFL3 but that's a separate issue. Drop the myth... Rangers were not relegated! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
killingfloorman Posted February 6, 2013 Share Posted February 6, 2013 The SFL could've let them in at any level the clubs chose. I would argue that allowing them into SFL1 would be more corrupt than allowing them into the SPL. I'm not too impressed they were allowed uncontested into SFL3 but that's a separate issue. Drop the myth... Rangers were not relegated! Exactly. How could a club that has never played in the SPL (copyright Chucky) have been relegated from it? 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.