Apache Don Posted March 28, 2014 Share Posted March 28, 2014 No, I realise that. Its the best guess so far, but Im not convinced it fits. Its an open question for anyone that can answer You are totally correct in that the ST money is not a loan but an advance payment on a transaction. Many people pay items like their Sky subscription, TV licence etc upfront without any thought as to security of guarantee. It's a wholly ridiculous and quite unprecedented request/demand from the fans' group. It's a total non-starter and I have no doubts the board will not sanction it. In fact, I'm so sure of this that I will come on here and openly admit to being astounded if they do. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aDONisSheep Posted March 28, 2014 Share Posted March 28, 2014 You are totally correct in that the ST money is not a loan but an advance payment on a transaction. Many people pay items like their Sky subscription, TV licence etc upfront without any thought as to security of guarantee. It's a wholly ridiculous and quite unprecedented request/demand from the fans' group. It's a total non-starter and I have no doubts the board will not sanction it. In fact, I'm so sure of this that I will come on here and openly admit to being astounded if they do. Not only that, you get a bulk discount, and other privileges (first option on tickets for euro games for example...... stop laughing at the back). 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Homer Thompson Posted March 28, 2014 Share Posted March 28, 2014 (edited) You are totally correct in that the ST money is not a loan but an advance payment on a transaction. Many people pay items like their Sky subscription, TV licence etc upfront without any thought as to security of guarantee. It's a wholly ridiculous and quite unprecedented request/demand from the fans' group. It's a total non-starter and I have no doubts the board will not sanction it. In fact, I'm so sure of this that I will come on here and openly admit to being astounded if they do. You have to wonder,then, why the fan groups came out with such a demand? Trying to call the BoDs bluff? Put up to it by King as part of his master plan - whatever that might be? Sheer stupidity? Did one of them just say "Haw, wir puttin aw this money intae the club. We shud get some securitae like they easdale blokes" and no-one questioned it? You make it sound like the board are not absolutely desperate for the next round of ST money. They clearly are. Yes, they are. They also have a responsibility to the shareholders though. I cant imagine they would be happy with the BoD handing over the companies only assets in exchange for, in effect, nothing. Edited March 28, 2014 by Mr X 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Florentine_Pogen Posted March 28, 2014 Share Posted March 28, 2014 Borrowed from KDS. I know the square root of feck all when it comes to business matters. Maybe this guy does. In any case, he raises what appear at face value to be a couple of interesting points :- In a few idle minutes this morning I took a gander at the accounts. I won't go over the ground other posters have covered. These are car crash statements.A few things stand out:They are cost cutting! Expenditure on these accounts is 2.8M per month. Last year it was 2.4M (accounts covered 7 months). So that's going well.They have managed to lift revenue from 1.4M per month to 2.2M. Revenue is just short of 50% on gate receipts - hence the panic over withholding season ticket money - they can't afford any risk to this revenue stream.The loss of 3.5M in a 6 month period is a big improvement on last year, but is still very impressive - they are running at a 27% loss over turnover.And then we come to cash. They have burned through 17.7M in 12 months. 7.7M in the last 6 months. The 3.5M in the bank on 31st December would have lasted until round about now. And about 1.6M isn't even available as working capital. Their 1.5M loan will get them to ........ round about now! They are running on fumes.But what I find interesting is that, on paper at least, they have property of £43M in freehold and a further 3.8M in player registrations. They are asset rich, but unprofitable and cash poor. Classic candidates for a venture capitalist release of asset value approach. And who own the shares? Oh yes, venture capitalists.I note also that Craig Whyte keeps popping up. His pursuit of the deeds is being dismissed, but not to the extent that they can avoid declaring the risk.It's interesting times for Sevco, and not in a good way. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Apache Don Posted March 28, 2014 Share Posted March 28, 2014 You have to wonder,then, why the fan groups came out with such a demand? Trying to call the BoDs bluff? Put up to it by King as part of his master plan - whatever that might be? Sheer stupidity? Did one of them just say "Haw, wir puttin aw this money intae the club. We shud get some securitae like they easdale blokes" and no-one questioned it? Yes, they are. They also have a responsibility to the shareholders though. I cant imagine they would be happy with the BoD handing over the companies only assets in exchange for, in effect, nothing. The first I heard of the idea, was in a statement from King in the printed press. (I haven't kept the cutting, before someone asks for proof ). It was not initiated from any of the supporter groups. Basically King mischief making in order to cause the disruption required for him to get invited in. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Homer Thompson Posted March 28, 2014 Share Posted March 28, 2014 (edited) The first I heard of the idea, was in a statement from King in the printed press. (I haven't kept the cutting, before someone asks for proof ). It was not initiated from any of the supporter groups. Basically King mischief making in order to cause the disruption required for him to get invited in. Invited in, or forcing admin so he doesnt need invited? ETA - he must be loving all this, King. Dangling the supporters groups on a thread, basically making them dance for him with the empty "promise" of huge cash investments, while noising up the current BoD and playing the media for fools. I guess he's bored now he doesnt have the SA tax authorities to play with Edited March 28, 2014 by Mr X 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Apache Don Posted March 28, 2014 Share Posted March 28, 2014 Borrowed from KDS. I know the square root of feck all when it comes to business matters. Maybe this guy does. In any case, he raises what appear at face value to be a couple of interesting points :- In a few idle minutes this morning I took a gander at the accounts. I won't go over the ground other posters have covered. These are car crash statements. A few things stand out: They are cost cutting! Expenditure on these accounts is 2.8M per month. Last year it was 2.4M (accounts covered 7 months). So that's going well. They have managed to lift revenue from 1.4M per month to 2.2M. Revenue is just short of 50% on gate receipts - hence the panic over withholding season ticket money - they can't afford any risk to this revenue stream. The loss of 3.5M in a 6 month period is a big improvement on last year, but is still very impressive - they are running at a 27% loss over turnover. And then we come to cash. They have burned through 17.7M in 12 months. 7.7M in the last 6 months. The 3.5M in the bank on 31st December would have lasted until round about now. And about 1.6M isn't even available as working capital. Their 1.5M loan will get them to ........ round about now! They are running on fumes. But what I find interesting is that, on paper at least, they have property of £43M in freehold and a further 3.8M in player registrations. They are asset rich, but unprofitable and cash poor. Classic candidates for a venture capitalist release of asset value approach. And who own the shares? Oh yes, venture capitalists. I note also that Craig Whyte keeps popping up. His pursuit of the deeds is being dismissed, but not to the extent that they can avoid declaring the risk. It's interesting times for Sevco, and not in a good way. I am not an accountant either but I deal with accountants on a regular basis and this guy most certainly is an accountant. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hipster Dufus Posted March 28, 2014 Share Posted March 28, 2014 So if they are bandying figures of £10, £30 and £50 million, what stopped the Lying King from ponying up £5.5 million last time the Clumpany needed a White/Blue Knight? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aofjays Posted March 28, 2014 Share Posted March 28, 2014 Nonsense of the highest order... Corporation tax (tax on profit) is and always has been a volatile source of government income and the trend has been more towards taxation of labour and property taxes which provide a steadier income and also a far harder form of taxation for accountants to avoid. In this instance it was the non-payment of PAYE & VAT that did for Version 1.0, not any tax on non-existent profits. What are you on about? I was talking about why the government allow vodafone, starbuck etc to pay little to no tax. If they tightened up the rules to make avoidance impossible these companies would simply set up elsewhere. Why do you bring up rangers? As I pointed out to benny this subject has nothing to do with the rangers saga and that is why it hasn't been discussed much on here. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HibeeJibee Posted March 28, 2014 Share Posted March 28, 2014 (edited) McCoist defending the number and scale of his summer signings in the wake of chairman Somers comments: http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/26791393 I struggle to see how he can say the influx was necessary, and the wage bill dropping isn't really a justification if it's still too high. Steve Simonson has appeared in 1 game all season (v Forfar in SPFL1). Stevie Smith has appeared in 7 games (all in SPFL1). Neither have really contributed to league or cup achievement at all. Others like Foster have a dozen-odd starts, but again, has that swung anything? You can't even use the defence that they're prospects for the future. Simonsen is about to turn 35, Smith and Foster are turning 29 in the summer. Both the number of signings and their cost in wages are ripe for criticism as some/all of 'unnecessary', 'wasteful', 'excessive', 'extravagent', etc. EDIT: And for all that they've reached the Scottish Cup SFs, they also went out of the League Cup in R1. Reaching the Ramsdens final was expected. Edited March 28, 2014 by HibeeJibee 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
williemillersmoustache Posted March 28, 2014 Share Posted March 28, 2014 I think there are many people who view patronising Vodafone, Starbucks etc as immoral. Just like the choice to follow follow on supporting newrangers is viewed by some (me) as an admission of moral bankruptcy. I note the suggestion of being stuck between a rock and a hard place with King and the board. Is there not 'a compete at the level you can afford' option somewhere out there? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jacksgranda Posted March 28, 2014 Share Posted March 28, 2014 Ive said it before, Why doesnt he put his £30m in a trust then and prove its ready to be used? I don't know. Why doesn't he? Anyone any suggestions? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Florentine_Pogen Posted March 28, 2014 Share Posted March 28, 2014 I think there are many people who view patronising Vodafone, Starbucks etc as immoral. Just like the choice to follow follow on supporting newrangers is viewed by some (me) as an admission of moral bankruptcy. I note the suggestion of being stuck between a rock and a hard place with King and the board. Is there not 'a compete at the level you can afford' option somewhere out there? Oh no, not in SashBashLand. Wouldn't be dignified, you see ? There can be no slipping of the Mask of Superiority. But what they need to realise is how it will all pan out with Laxey and the Kraydales. [yt] [/yt] 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Homer Thompson Posted March 28, 2014 Share Posted March 28, 2014 McCoist defending the number and scale of his summer signings in the wake of chairman Somers comments: http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/26791393 I struggle to see how he can say the influx was necessary, and the wage bill dropping isn't really a justification if it's still too high. Steve Simonson has appeared in 1 game all season (v Forfar in SPFL1). Stevie Smith has appeared in 7 games (all in SPFL1). Neither have really contributed to league or cup achievement at all. Others like Foster have a dozen-odd starts, but again, has that swung anything? You can't even use the defence that they're prospects for the future. Simonsen is about to turn 35, Smith and Foster are turning 29 in the summer. Both the number of signings and their cost in wages are ripe for criticism as some/all of 'unnecessary', 'wasteful', 'excessive', 'extravagent', etc. EDIT: And for all that they've reached the Scottish Cup SFs, they also went out of the League Cup in R1. Reaching the Ramsdens final was expected. Its like two alternate realities have over-lapped. In one, the club is in financial peril, leaking cash, needing to cut costs, raise investment and fight to keep the wolves from the door. In the other, theres Ally McCoist 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EdTheDuck Posted March 28, 2014 Share Posted March 28, 2014 Its like two alternate realities have over-lapped. In one, the club is in financial peril, leaking cash, needing to cut costs, raise investment and fight to keep the wolves from the door. In the other, theres Ally McCoist Seriously, why hasn't he been fired? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Homer Thompson Posted March 28, 2014 Share Posted March 28, 2014 Seriously, why hasn't he been fired? Because he's telling the fans exactly what they want to hear, whilst, almost cleverly, deflecting away from his own inadequacies (I use the term cleverly in its loosest sense). In an odd way, I also think it takes the focus off the BoD. Imagine the reaction of the fans if they had a CEO and a manager telling them how much money they needed to save, how they were going to cut the playing staff and how tough the next few years would be. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Florentine_Pogen Posted March 28, 2014 Share Posted March 28, 2014 Seriously, why hasn't he been fired? Perhaps they can't afford to. Although his 'annual rolling contract' must be coming up for renewal soon. It may well have a clause guaranteeing him a hefty bonus for each promotion achieved on his watch. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AberdeenBud Posted March 28, 2014 Share Posted March 28, 2014 (edited) McCoist defending the number and scale of his summer signings in the wake of chairman Somers comments: http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/26791393 I struggle to see how he can say the influx was necessary, and the wage bill dropping isn't really a justification if it's still too high. Steve Simonson has appeared in 1 game all season (v Forfar in SPFL1). Stevie Smith has appeared in 7 games (all in SPFL1). Neither have really contributed to league or cup achievement at all. Others like Foster have a dozen-odd starts, but again, has that swung anything? You can't even use the defence that they're prospects for the future. Simonsen is about to turn 35, Smith and Foster are turning 29 in the summer. Both the number of signings and their cost in wages are ripe for criticism as some/all of 'unnecessary', 'wasteful', 'excessive', 'extravagent', etc. EDIT: And for all that they've reached the Scottish Cup SFs, they also went out of the League Cup in R1. Reaching the Ramsdens final was expected. More faces than the toon clock as usual. Astounding that he continually comes sway with this nonsense without being questioned by the compliant media. Remember according to the leaked e-mail Ally knew exactly what each player was on and how this affected his budget, and then he comes away with his "I don't know, I don't do the accounts, I don't do the finances." pish. Utterly contemptible man. I think it's bad enough having Danny Lennon, but I'd be utterly horrified if this duplicitous snake was any where near my football club. Eta- Needing to spend tens of millions to get to the Diddy Cup final. Edited March 28, 2014 by AberdeenBud 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AberdeenBud Posted March 28, 2014 Share Posted March 28, 2014 Seriously, why hasn't he been fired? He's cleverly positioned himself as a kingmaker for hire, so his managerial and budgetary abilities are irrelevant to his continued employment. Death of oldco has been the best thing that ever happened to McCoist. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EdTheDuck Posted March 28, 2014 Share Posted March 28, 2014 What are you on about? I was talking about why the government allow vodafone, starbuck etc to pay little to no tax. If they tightened up the rules to make avoidance impossible these companies would simply set up elsewhere. Why do you bring up rangers? As I pointed out to benny this subject has nothing to do with the rangers saga and that is why it hasn't been discussed much on here. And I was pointing out that the corp tax they pay is almost a drop in the ocean compared to the tax raised via VAT, ERS NIC, & property taxes as well as PAYE & EES NIC paid by their employees. The idea that they would up sticks and leave if corporation tax was foolproof is beyond stupidity 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.