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...
Praw Posted June 11, 2015 Share Posted June 11, 2015 What do they receive for shirt sponsorship? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AberdeenBud 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. I'm not claiming to to know if it's a great deal or not , just saying it didn't sound that bad to me when you factor in SD are doing all the work. I'm sure our deal with JD was rumoured to be even worse(yes I know, we are not the people). These large scale manufacturers seem to have clubs, well diddy clubs anyway, over a barrel now and the days of you purchasing a strip out the club shop and most of that money finding it's way back to the club seem long gone. Whether you like it or not the fact remains that Rangers knowingly entered into this perfectly legal commercial agreement and to be constantly greeting about like the terms now seems like a lot of tears over some spilt milk. Fair play to G&S if he finds a way out of it, but I'm not convinced he's doing anything apart from howling at the moon. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AberdeenBud Posted June 11, 2015 Share Posted June 11, 2015 Round and round we go. In the infamous phrase, "Craig Whyte was Rangers". Same applies to Chuckles when he, presumably, signed the retail agreement. The fact you dinnae like him now or he's got a big hoose in France is neither here nor there. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ken Fitlike Posted June 11, 2015 Share Posted June 11, 2015 (edited) 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. Weren't you a CG fanboy? Edited June 11, 2015 by Ken Fitlike 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
THE KING Posted June 11, 2015 Share Posted June 11, 2015 Are the King fan boys calling this some sort of victory? Yes apparently challenging a confidentiality clause in court and getting arse raped in the process whilst handing over £20k to the winner is an amazing success.... ..stand by for 'we expected this ' type shite from DKs mouthpieces 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bennett Posted June 11, 2015 Share Posted June 11, 2015 Ashley's placemen made those deals, hardly in the best interests of anyone other than themselves. It'll all come out soon enough. -1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hellbhoy Posted June 11, 2015 Share Posted June 11, 2015 Never Clueless as ever. The club/company runs at an operating loss but it isn't classed as debt ffs ? The operating loss is covered by soft loans to keep the club solvent but you still claim it isn't debt ? The soft loans become debt to the club/company that paid the operating losses, so the operating loss now becomes debt to the lender but to you it still isn't classed as debt to be paid back to the lender. So in your tiny mind the operating losses aren't accrued debt run up by the club/company that if it isn't settled would in fact have brought in the administrators sooner but it still isn't debt. So Tedi get on the phone to Rangers FC and ask for The Mad King and tell him RIFC or Rangers FC do not have to service the operating losses because it isn't debt according to you. The operating losses are things such as players wages, managers & BoD's wages, staff wages, electricity bills, water rates etc etc who all need paying by the way or the club folds over in debt to it's own staff and creditors but it's not debt according to Tedi and does not need to be paid to pay the clubs wages & bills. It's still debt you moron that someone needs to pay or cover until such times the club can pay it's debts in loans to whom they borrowed from to service the operating losses. Operating losses = not debt according to Tedi. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
~~~ Posted June 11, 2015 Share Posted June 11, 2015 What do they receive for shirt sponsorship? Not sure, I think they signed a confidentiality clause to keep that sort of commercial interest private 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doink Posted June 11, 2015 Share Posted June 11, 2015 Paul Murray 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sergeant Wilson Posted June 11, 2015 Share Posted June 11, 2015 Ashley's placemen made those deals, hardly in the best interests of anyone other than themselves. It'll all come out soon enough. Maybe the club needed cash and this was a legal mechanism to put it in. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nsr Posted June 11, 2015 Share Posted June 11, 2015 I've been busy this evening. Has Brave Sir Dave defeated the evil Dark Lord Ashley yet? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hellbhoy Posted June 11, 2015 Share Posted June 11, 2015 These deals are made by the individuals running clubs, ignoring this is just daft trolling m8 So much for you proclaiming you pay money to watch football and that's it. The cnuts who run the club have gave you a product on the park but here you are greeting like a raped sheep because ?, the club is a financial basket case for any crooked cnut to rip the piss out of with onerous contracts to keep the club afloat so that Tedi can still go to Ibrox and pay his money to watch football. These onerous contracts you keep spilling tears & snotters all over your keyboard with have in fact given you what you claim only to be interested in, a team on the park playing football at Ibrox. Without those onerous contracts we'd be celebrating the death of another Rangers FC est 2012. They may be unfair to the club, but it's the clubs fault it ended up in such a position where it couldn't negotiate for itself a better deal in all the revenue departments because it had no fucking money in the first place and had to take any deal to keep the lights on and give Tedi what he wants. A team on the park called Rangers FC playing football at Ibrox. I'm sure if you were RIFC's CEO and were placed in a position were you would get financially raped at will and not only that willing to be raped so that you could still field a team on the park and staving off insolvency for another few months you would do it. Because if you did not then it's goodnight and goodbye Rangers FC's cloned Frankenstein club. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hellbhoy Posted June 11, 2015 Share Posted June 11, 2015 Correct. Get on the phone to The Mad KIng and tell him he can run up gazillions of operating losses in the accounts and it isn't debt so therefore does not have to be paid ever. Only a fool would claim an operating isn ??? wait a minute it's Tedi I'm replying too. Five stars strikes again. 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.