Joey Jo Jo Junior Shabadoo Posted February 15, 2013 Share Posted February 15, 2013 Nonsense,when Whyte took over The Rangers Football Club PLC had a debt of £18 million,which was being reduced year on year. The PLC were liquidated to the sum of £56 million, £27 million Ticketus,£7.5 million Debenture holders, £15 million approx. to HMRC PAYE & N,I.,the balance to all other creditors including season ticket holders and football debts. Whyte is responsible for bring in the debt from Ticketus and HMRC which was a total of approx £42 million. Murray made it part of the sale that Whyte cleared the bank debt,£18 million, but was negligent in ensuring Whyte cleared this with his own money. Hello, long time lurker blah, blah, blah... I felt the need to join up after, to my surprise, nobody picked up on this particularly sizeable open goal which was set up yesterday. Use of an £18million figure for this comparison is erroneous at best. This was a bank debt, but you are comparing it to the total liabilities at liquidation. In fact, having a look at the last accounts before Whyte came in (http://www.isdx.com/infostore/Company-Accounts/RangersFootball/rangers2010.pdf) Rangers liabilities were £65million (p.28 note 15 & 16). Therefore assuming your £56million is correct then Craig Whyte actually reduced debt during his tenure. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WhiteRoseKillie Posted February 15, 2013 Share Posted February 15, 2013 You can think whatever you want about Green, I do not think he will be any more concerned than I am about what your opinion of him is Still makes no difference about the Footballing Authorities and those record books mind My opinion of Green is irrelevant here. You said you could interpret his statements differently. I supplied a choice of three for you to explain the different interpretations one could draw from them. You signally failed to do so. I gave you another chance. You clutched at your "record books" comfort blanket. You're really not very good at this, are you? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Henrik's tongue Posted February 15, 2013 Share Posted February 15, 2013 Hello, long time lurker blah, blah, blah... I felt the need to join up after, to my surprise, nobody picked up on this particularly sizeable open goal which was set up yesterday. Use of an £18million figure for this comparison is erroneous at best. This was a bank debt, but you are comparing it to the total liabilities at liquidation. In fact, having a look at the last accounts before Whyte came in (http://www.isdx.com/infostore/Company-Accounts/RangersFootball/rangers2010.pdf) Rangers liabilities were £65million (p.28 note 15 & 16). Therefore assuming your £56million is correct then Craig Whyte actually reduced debt during his tenure. I like this Joey Jo Jo Junior Shabadoo guy. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
youngsy Posted February 15, 2013 Share Posted February 15, 2013 So the club and company only became seperate after a notice of liquidation was served? That's handy Where did i say that,Henrik? When Green was negotiating to buy under a CVA then he was buying the company and business,that business being the operating of the football club. HMRC pushed the PLC into liquidation because they wern't willing to accept the CVA,hence the asset sale of the PLC which brought in the business,football. Read the summation from both law lords Nimmo-Smith and Glennie,they state that club and company are seperate and this can be seen when one of them relates to the transfer of the SPL share from Rangers to Dundee,it is referred as the "transfer of share to The Dundee Football Club Limited, the owner and operator of Dundee F.C. That is two law lords that have opinioned that club and company are seperate so in that respect i'd rather take their opinion over anyone on a football forum. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
~~~ Posted February 15, 2013 Share Posted February 15, 2013 Aye them too, talking of which; What is Muirhead on this morning, he seems a tad upset. No idea, I don't read his blogs, just following him on twitter for the seeth factor from both sets of fans,. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WhiteRoseKillie Posted February 15, 2013 Share Posted February 15, 2013 Welcome, Joey. Quick question, Tedi - why do you think that our pointing out your stupidity means we're angry? Your amigos seem to think this way too. Seems a wee bit strange, as the rest of Scottish Football has been laughing their tits off at you lot for over a year now - d'ye reckon it's "Tears of A Clown" stuff? Because, believe me, it's fucking not! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bearwithme Posted February 15, 2013 Share Posted February 15, 2013 Hello, long time lurker blah, blah, blah... I felt the need to join up after, to my surprise, nobody picked up on this particularly sizeable open goal which was set up yesterday. Use of an £18million figure for this comparison is erroneous at best. This was a bank debt, but you are comparing it to the total liabilities at liquidation. In fact, having a look at the last accounts before Whyte came in (http://www.isdx.com/infostore/Company-Accounts/RangersFootball/rangers2010.pdf) Rangers liabilities were £65million (p.28 note 15 & 16). Therefore assuming your £56million is correct then Craig Whyte actually reduced debt during his tenure. Liabilities and debt are not the same thing. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Henrik's tongue Posted February 15, 2013 Share Posted February 15, 2013 Where did i say that,Henrik? When Green was negotiating to buy under a CVA then he was buying the company and business,that business being the operating of the football club. HMRC pushed the PLC into liquidation because they wern't willing to accept the CVA,hence the asset sale of the PLC which brought in the business,football. Read the summation from both law lords Nimmo-Smith and Glennie,they state that club and company are seperate and this can be seen when one of them relates to the transfer of the SPL share from Rangers to Dundee,it is referred as the "transfer of share to The Dundee Football Club Limited, the owner and operator of Dundee F.C. That is two law lords that have opinioned that club and company are seperate so in that respect i'd rather take their opinion over anyone on a football forum. If opinions of other fans on a football forum mean so little to you, why do you spend so much time arguing your interpretation of things with them? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stonedsailor Posted February 15, 2013 Share Posted February 15, 2013 And I was simply replying to someone else, blame them from bringing it up, are you comprehending this now? You seem very angry Stoney. Did Terry`s comments upset you? I am not upset, frustrated at your attempts to deflect and frustrated at trying to let you Newco fans see the truth. You clearly replied to me and then I replied to you. It's your comprehension failure pure and simple, you have to be the thickest Sevco fan I have had the pleasure of tutoring. At least all the other knew what the five stars were for. I've supported ICT since day one, just like you have new Rangers, I have seen crowds far lower than 2,500, why would I be upset by Terry's comments? He is just trying to gain some more support from the plastic Glaswegians and Aberdonians in and around Inverness. He's doing the right thing. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stonedsailor Posted February 15, 2013 Share Posted February 15, 2013 It's great to see the fools falling for the propaganda, every time there is a press release from the ministry of information they are out here snapping like salmon at feeding time in the cage. It's a troll's wet dream. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stonedsailor Posted February 15, 2013 Share Posted February 15, 2013 Now do you want to turn this into an insult throwing contest? or are we done? Go for it, I am a merchant seaman, skin as thick as a 90 year old rhino, if I couldn't take a bit of slagging I'd have turned mental by now. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joey Jo Jo Junior Shabadoo Posted February 15, 2013 Share Posted February 15, 2013 Liabilities and debt are not the same thing. Really? Please explain... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack D and Coke Posted February 15, 2013 Share Posted February 15, 2013 I would say that the part in bold explains that he is an enemy of a football club,wouldn't you or is there something lost in the translation. An enemy of a football club,fucking pathetic. Nope. I can see it could be interpreted either way though. Let's ask him. Attention J D & Coke! Your post at 19.06 needs clarification. Youngsy reckons you are stating that you are an enemy of The Rangers and I reckon you meant that They are making you out to be. Which is it? Youngsy is right but i think he's getting a bit carried away about it tbh, I'm not alone and I'm not likely to start a terror group so just take it as words man. I've yet to meet a Rangers fan since it happened that isn't raging at all the clubs, the SFA/SPL whoever. Ill bet there are bears who are from Gorgie hoping Hearts go bust and bears from Motherwell seeing their home town club struggling and are glad about it it makes me sick. Right from the off the officials of the club started making enemies out of the rest of Scottish football so apache Son has a point also. It started that way but to settle the argument youngsy is more right than yourself apache don. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stonedsailor Posted February 15, 2013 Share Posted February 15, 2013 Tedi, why don't you start by explaining why Rangers' arbitration through the SFA did not transfer to Rangers? Then you can explain why the spurious link to Rangers current Scottish club squad on UEFA.com is A] Not linked to on Rangers' profile page and B] Shows that none of those players have played for Rangers in the Scottish cup despite the other Rangers having played 3 matches? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
youngsy Posted February 15, 2013 Share Posted February 15, 2013 Hello, long time lurker blah, blah, blah... I felt the need to join up after, to my surprise, nobody picked up on this particularly sizeable open goal which was set up yesterday. Use of an £18million figure for this comparison is erroneous at best. This was a bank debt, but you are comparing it to the total liabilities at liquidation. In fact, having a look at the last accounts before Whyte came in (http://www.isdx.com/infostore/Company-Accounts/RangersFootball/rangers2010.pdf) Rangers liabilities were £65million (p.28 note 15 & 16). Therefore assuming your £56million is correct then Craig Whyte actually reduced debt during his tenure. Yes it was a bank debt but it was a debt that was being serviced year on year,Whyte however brought this club more debt upon it with the Ticketus debt,HMRC debt,football debts. Within a 9 month period he added to the debt of the club by bringing in this debt. The PLC was liquidated for the approx sum of £56 million,although the potential EBT debt was put forward for voting purposes by HMRC. Whytes actions brought on the liquidation and there is no way he reduced that debt. Now maybe my figures are out,although i don't think i am with the £56 million. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aofjays Posted February 15, 2013 Share Posted February 15, 2013 Liabilities and debt are not the same thing. I'm not an accountant so I'm no doubt interpreting the following incorrectly but from the Wikipedia article on liabilities "Liabilities are debts and obligations of the business, they represent creditors claim on business assets." From investopedia: "{Liabilities are} A company's legal debts or obligations that arise during the course of business operations." From investorwords.com "{Liabilities are} An obligation that legally binds an individual or company to settle a debt." From accountingcoach.com "{Liabilities are} Obligations of a company or organization. Amounts owed to lenders and suppliers." -1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Henrik's tongue Posted February 15, 2013 Share Posted February 15, 2013 ^^^^ Kris Boyd 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bearwithme Posted February 15, 2013 Share Posted February 15, 2013 Really? Please explain... Debt is only part of a business's liabilities. For example, Celtic's debt was said last year to be about £7 million. However, their total liabilities were around £44 million. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stonedsailor Posted February 15, 2013 Share Posted February 15, 2013 I'm not an accountant so I'm no doubt interpreting the following incorrectly but from the Wikipedia article on liabilities "Liabilities are debts and obligations of the business, they represent creditors claim on business assets." From investopedia: "{Liabilities are} A company's legal debts or obligations that arise during the course of business operations." From investorwords.com "{Liabilities are} An obligation that legally binds an individual or company to settle a debt." From accountingcoach.com "{Liabilities are} Obligations of a company or organization. Amounts owed to lenders and suppliers." Welcome to P&B, please stop hitting the the rangers fans with factual evidence it makes them disappear for an hour or so until Jabba tells them what to say. In future phrase things as a question because their superiority complex overrides the instinct to seek guidance and they feel the need to prove their self-percieved intelligence. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GreenockRover Posted February 15, 2013 Share Posted February 15, 2013 (edited) Liabilities and debt are not the same thing. You appear not to have completed this explanation....? If you have the discourtesy to attempt to trash an explanation, any chance you could enlighten us with your (undoubtedly) correct explanation of the difference between the two. ?Clue: Discuss the effect of a balance sheet where net liabilities might impact on the Company's overall profitability in:A) Continuance of trading (5 marks)B) An insolvency event (5 marks)C) A Merger with another Company (5 marks)Can't wait for this one.... Edit to add You have 1,000 years to make your statement correct........... beginning ............now. Edited February 15, 2013 by GreenockRover 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.