wunfellaff Posted June 12, 2013 Share Posted June 12, 2013 Tee hee.. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim McLean's Ghost Posted June 12, 2013 Share Posted June 12, 2013 prior to ticketus deal: rangers owed LBG £18m after ticketus deal : rangers owed LBG £0, owed Ticketus £27m (of ticket sales) but had £9m to use. so debt prior is £18m debt after is £27m (-£9m 'available' funds) so looking at it this the Scottish Media way,.. CW had added £9m to rangers warchest and mccoist went on a spending spree. Spending spree isn't what I remember. I think there was a clause in the Murray/Whyte deal that required investment in the squad of X millions of pounds (X might be 10 I can't remember details) To accomplish this Craig Whyte dished out massive multi year deals to current players (Whittaker, McGregor, Davis, Naismith) which he probably saw as the cheapest way of meeting his contractual obligations. They probably signed 5 or 6 (I remember Wallace, Bocanegra and Goian but there were probably a couple of others I'm forgetting) 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joey Jo Jo Junior Shabadoo Posted June 12, 2013 Share Posted June 12, 2013 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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joey Jo Jo Junior Shabadoo Posted June 12, 2013 Share Posted June 12, 2013 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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joey Jo Jo Junior Shabadoo Posted June 12, 2013 Share Posted June 12, 2013 Sure after you give me the breakdowns I asked for. Not there then, is it? I've referenced everything, so up yours. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bennett Posted June 12, 2013 Share Posted June 12, 2013 Not there then, is it? I've referenced everything, so up yours. Oh dear, stamping your feet because everyone is laughing at your gross stipidity. Splendid. -1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KeeperDee Posted June 12, 2013 Share Posted June 12, 2013 Oh dear, stamping your feet because everyone is laughing at your gross stipidity. Splendid. Stupidity* HTH scamp. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
youngsy Posted June 12, 2013 Share Posted June 12, 2013 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? 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. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
youngsy Posted June 12, 2013 Share Posted June 12, 2013 Spending spree isn't what I remember. I think there was a clause in the Murray/Whyte deal that required investment in the squad of X millions of pounds (X might be 10 I can't remember details) To accomplish this Craig Whyte dished out massive multi year deals to current players (Whittaker, McGregor, Davis, Naismith) which he probably saw as the cheapest way of meeting his contractual obligations. They probably signed 5 or 6 (I remember Wallace, Bocanegra and Goian but there were probably a couple of others I'm forgetting) Whyte stated that £15 million would be made available to McCoist. Not surprisingly that never came to fruition either. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joey Jo Jo Junior Shabadoo Posted June 12, 2013 Share Posted June 12, 2013 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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bennett Posted June 12, 2013 Share Posted June 12, 2013 Stupidity* HTH scamp. Bah......... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ribzanelli Posted June 12, 2013 Share Posted June 12, 2013 How much of the debt can actually be put on Whyte during his tenure? I don't mean things like PAYE/NI, I realise he should have paid these but I presume the money saved by not paying them went to service other debts such as wages etc. Unless of course he stole this money. How many players were signed and for how much under Whyte? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joey Jo Jo Junior Shabadoo Posted June 12, 2013 Share Posted June 12, 2013 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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Henrik's tongue Posted June 12, 2013 Share Posted June 12, 2013 Bah......... Humbug! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bennett Posted June 12, 2013 Share Posted June 12, 2013 An article from Private eye. If the £25m case is won, could that settle the oldco's debts (reme,bering that ticketus are going after Shyte directly)? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim McLean's Ghost Posted June 12, 2013 Share Posted June 12, 2013 An article from Private eye. If the £25m case is won, could that settle the oldco's debts (reme,bering that ticketus are going after Shyte directly)? I never understand why Rangers are after £25M. Do they think CB was required to pay the Ticketus money to Rangers but instead it went to Whyte personally who used it to wipe out the Lloyds debt. Maybe £25M is just a starting point but there can be no contention that a good portion of the ticketus money was used by the chairman on behalf of the club. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ribzanelli Posted June 12, 2013 Share Posted June 12, 2013 He admitted on TV that he stole made money from Rangers, 'Several Million' He also admitted on TV that when they failed to qualify for Europe then the company was a 'basket case' I think we can safely say that he was admitting the company was insolvent and he knew it, so every debt from this point can be put down to Whyte, it is fraud for a director to knowingly take on debt while knowing it cannot be paid. But if Whyte had never come along would they still have been a basket case once knocked out of Europe that year? Did they spend frivolously on players under Whyte, I really can't remember? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joey Jo Jo Junior Shabadoo Posted June 12, 2013 Share Posted June 12, 2013 (edited) 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 Edited June 12, 2013 by Joey Jo Jo Junior Shabadoo 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bennett Posted June 12, 2013 Share Posted June 12, 2013 I never understand why Rangers are after £25M. Do they think CB was required to pay the Ticketus money to Rangers but instead it went to Whyte personally who used it to wipe out the Lloyds debt. Maybe £25M is just a starting point but there can be no contention that a good portion of the ticketus money was used by the chairman on behalf of the club. It was Duff and Phelps who started the proceedings for the £25m and BDO have followed on, but you probably already knew that.... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bennett Posted June 12, 2013 Share Posted June 12, 2013 Rangers own up to doping scandal.... The SFA has launched a working committee to investigate this.. 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.