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...
youngsy Posted June 12, 2013 Share Posted June 12, 2013 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 I'll accept this £65 million overall liability but the net debt of the plc, after deducting cash in hand and cash equivalents was indeed £27 million. So in that case Whyte added approx £22 million to the debt as at date of administration, a total of £49 million, the other £7 million was applied to bondholders as creditors. In effect Whyte was the central cause of the liquidation of the PLC. Would you agree with that. 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 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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ken Fitlike Posted June 12, 2013 Share Posted June 12, 2013 has tedi won this arguement? I lost track of the arcane accountancy early on. sheer stamina probably carried him through. has he been tested for vimbos? was Joey Jo Jo Junior Shabadoo duped? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bennett Posted June 12, 2013 Share Posted June 12, 2013 I wonder if Joey Jo jo... will ever post about the team he claims to support? Worst alias ever imo. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aofjays Posted June 12, 2013 Share Posted June 12, 2013 has tedi won this arguement? I lost track of the arcane accountancy early on. sheer stamina probably carried him through. has he been tested for vimbos? was Joey Jo Jo Junior Shabadoo duped? Fraid not, Tedi is just pretending to be far more stupid than he actually is (or anyone is for that matter) and hoping Jo Jo gives up. eg: T:GIVE ME A BREAKDOWN J:I added one year liabilities and more than one year liabilities to get total liabilities T: SO YOU WON'T GIVE ME A BREAKDOWN J: there is no breakdown, I'm just quoting the accounts. T: SO WHERE IS THE BREAKDOWN J: Section blah blah, paragraph blah etc etc T:SO WILL YOU GIVE ME A BREAKDOWN J: no T: I KNEW IT!!!!!! I WIN!!!!! YOU SMELL!!!! It's kind of funny in a strange sad way. 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.