Joey Jo Jo Junior Shabadoo Posted June 11, 2015 Share Posted June 11, 2015 That kind of puts a major dent in your farted out assumption that the debt will only be £6.8 million doesn't it ? To be fair to Tedi he made absolutely no mention of the debt. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Musketeer Gripweed Posted June 11, 2015 Share Posted June 11, 2015 After the good guys won I remember you claiming Ashley would be the better option. If that was the case why is he desperately trying to keep his contracts out of the public domain That's easy. He deals with more clubs than Rangers, He wants to make sure he gets as good a deal as he can for himself. He doesn't want other clubs to know how much Rangers are making out of him as they might want the same. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
THE KING Posted June 11, 2015 Share Posted June 11, 2015 "We call on the hundreds of thousands of Rangers fans who have already stopped purchasing official merchandise to continue to abstain from an arrangement which benefits only Mr Ashley." If only Dave didnt get morons like TEDI to boycott STs the old board wouldn't have been forced into MAs killer deal....well done to all the boycotters...also just think any Rangers fan seen wearing next seasons top will be a scab....lovely stuff. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AberdeenBud Posted June 11, 2015 Share Posted June 11, 2015 Tedi, was the agreement signed in January you were referring to this? http://www.londonstockexchange.com/exchange/news/market-news/market-news-detail/12227853.html If so that has nothing to with the original Rangers retail agreement that you claim was signed by "Fat Mike's employees", and it only refers to the extra 26% that was given to SD for the duration of the SD loan. Yet to see any evidence of coercion or wrong doing relating to the original retail agreement. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
THE KING Posted June 11, 2015 Share Posted June 11, 2015 "We call on the hundreds of thousands of Rangers fans who have already stopped purchasing official merchandise to continue to abstain from an arrangement which benefits only Mr Ashley." If only Dave didnt get morons like TEDI to boycott STs the old board wouldn't have been forced into MAs killer deal....well done to all the boycotters...also just think any Rangers fan seen wearing next seasons top will be a scab....lovely stuff. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Podlie Posted June 11, 2015 Share Posted June 11, 2015 its not, I quoted figures from the accounts and the QC copied a blog. http://www.londonstockexchange.com/exchange/news/market-news/market-news-detail/12299859.html The key operating assumptions for the value-in-use calculations are as set out in the Group's disclosures on going concern. In addition the value in use calculations are sensitive to the following additional assumptions: · discount rate of 14% · long term growth rate of 2% · obtaining promotion at the conclusion of season 2014/15 to the Scottish Premiership · predictions of expected football results beyond season 2014/15 i.e. league placings; cup progressions; match day attendances; and future European participation from 2016/17 onwards, based on previous experience of the Club. Management estimates discount rates using pre-tax rates that reflect the current market assessments of the time value of money and the risks specific to the Group's one cash-generating unit (CGU). The discount rate reflects management's view of the current risk profile of the underlying assets being valued with regard to the current economic environment and the risks that the football game as a whole are facing. The impairment review supported the carrying value of RIFC's non-current assets of £64.9m, showing a value in use of £69.8m. The Group has also conducted sensitivity analysis on the impairment test of the CGU's carrying value. The following reasonably possible individual changes in key assumptions would cause the CGU's recoverable amount to be equal to its carrying amount · increase in discount rate from 14% to 14.7% · reduction in long term growth rate from 2% to 0.8% · reduction in season 2015/16 operating cash flows of 86% · reduction in average annual cash flows in seasons 2016/17 to 2018/19 9% 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
accietilleyedye Posted June 11, 2015 Share Posted June 11, 2015 Really? As far i can see he wants shareholders to back him at an egm, yet kicked sand in the faces of those same shareholders faces and has shown those same shareholders that he something to hide in regards to his contracts. Maybe im not a big business guru like you are, so perhaps you could explain it all.... Except it isn't Ashley that wants the confidentiality honoured it is Sports Direct, also those terms should be able to be discussed at the EGM with shareholders present, but as today's precedent shows if those details become public it will be Rangers that is paying the bills for SD to take them to court about it 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
THE KING Posted June 11, 2015 Share Posted June 11, 2015 Orcs floundering badly here. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr Koop Posted June 11, 2015 Share Posted June 11, 2015 How many sleeps to go? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P45 Posted June 11, 2015 Share Posted June 11, 2015 Are the King fan boys calling this some sort of victory? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beermonkey Posted June 11, 2015 Share Posted June 11, 2015 Are the King fan boys calling this some sort of victory? I hope so.......It gives the rest of us a great laugh. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hellbhoy Posted June 11, 2015 Share Posted June 11, 2015 its not, I quoted figures from the accounts and the QC copied a blog. OK chump change, then discredit what I posted then. Dispute and back up where you think I have supposedly got it wrong and you are right ??? £6.8 million you claim to be in debt at the end of June ???, you are seriously fucking stupid if you think that. Copied from a blog ???, it's as clear as day you thick orc and all the figures are in the public domain. From the interim accounts are, Wee share issue & Commonwealth games money totalling £4.3 million the club won't receive this season that it used to try and plug the operating losses. The £2.8 million in debt you posted but there is also an unpaid loan in the accounts totalling to £1.5 million. From what we actually you fucknugget the club has borrowed and is well documented in the media and in the public domain are, Ashley's £5 million loan or will you do a Mad King's approach and say it isn't actually debt ??? T3B's two £1.5 million soft loans from March & April this year. King's apparent £1.5 million to cover May's bills. So not including the wee share issue and Commonwealth money the total amount of debt your club has run up not including the soft loan to cover June's wages and bills is ? £13.8 million without this June's bills being included. If there is anything you have a query or problem with in my accounting abilities then feel free to make a complete arse out of yourself by trying to be a smart arse by discrediting what I have posted or just shut the fcuk up and admit you got it completely wrong again because you are as thick as fcuk and need much smarter people to help you see what did or where you got it wrong. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AberdeenBud Posted June 11, 2015 Share Posted June 11, 2015 No It was the one the judge referred to today So it was a different agreement in January the judge referred to? Genuinely confused. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hellbhoy Posted June 11, 2015 Share Posted June 11, 2015 To be fair to Tedi he made absolutely no mention of the debt. Aye your right he just posted £2.8 million in his post from the accounts and using the Mad Kings view it isn't really debt at all is it ? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AberdeenBud Posted June 11, 2015 Share Posted June 11, 2015 Tbf I don't really see what Ashley gained from today, unless it's just an expensive trolling exercise? The details will probably come out anyway and he's just tacitly reinforced King's dubious claims about the original retail agreement. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bennett Posted June 11, 2015 Share Posted June 11, 2015 Are the King fan boys calling this some sort of victory? It's not as straightforward as that. Some negatives, some positives.... Happy to help. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Podlie Posted June 11, 2015 Share Posted June 11, 2015 This has nothing to do with anything in my post, it was part of an impairment review carried out by the old board in June 2014 Your right on both accounts, though present board saw fit to include it, if it's a worst case scenario might not be that bad, maybe just loose 50% not 86% of cash flow. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AberdeenBud Posted June 11, 2015 Share Posted June 11, 2015 The shit is already out, 7 year rolling contract where Rangers make £3.5 a £50 shirt if they sell their allocation which is based on the previous seasons sales. All he gained was further alienation from his customer base. Aye, but is the £3.50 based on the 51% or 76%? Fiver a shirt for doing hee haw, whilst not being great, doesn't sound that bad to me tbh. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hellbhoy Posted June 11, 2015 Share Posted June 11, 2015 Do you have reading difficulties? I never mentioned debt, another poster has already pointed this out of course. Seriously ???, so when does an operating loss not be known as debt then ??? Here is your initial post I responded to, According to the published interim accounts Operating loss £2.8M loss down from £3.6M in the same period last year, if this trend continues then the loss would stand around £6.8m for the full year. So it isn't any sort of debt accrued from operating the club then is it ?, it's an operating loss you predict to be around £6.8 million by the end of the season but it isn't debt. You are having a mare here by trying to claim an operating loss isn't actually debt run up by mismanaging the clubs/companies finances ffs. So we can just ignore any operating loss the club runs up because it isn't really debt at all, is this what you are saying ?. The Rangers can just ignore the operating losses by not servicing them because according to Tedi it isn't debt. Sooooo by the end of the season the operating losses won't be debt that was supplied by loans from Ashley, T3b's and The Mad King to keep the club solvent that ends up in the club/companies accounts later on as debt to be serviced but funnily enough is also known as an operating loss. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
~~~ Posted June 11, 2015 Share Posted June 11, 2015 It is an unbelievably shit arrangement, one look at any previous deal would show that, this is the problem with discussing anything on P & B, people just come out with this nonsense and expect it to be taken seriously. Ashley signed up a shit deal for Rangers with CG which was no doubt beneficial for whatever board members were running the show. Later on he persuaded some other board members to agree to a loan when other finance offers were on the table, again beneficial for whatever board members were involved, this allowed him to get his people on the inside who added yet more onerous terms that give no benefit whatsoever to the club. That is what has happened, either King can get out of the deal or Rangers have to survive without any retail income for 7 years. Why? It's not as if your clumpany sells a lot of replica kits. The reason Sports Direct done the deal was simple because nobody else was interested. Not even Adidas 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.