Jump to content

Support Jim Spence


Recommended Posts

There is a thread in the league one section for you to claim how rangers never died it's called the BRALT. You will find a lot of willful ignorance down there, mostly from fucktards who don't understand what liquidation means ;)

So you post there a lot?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 816
  • Created
  • Last Reply

The SFA, FIFA and UEFA all disagree. You apparently think you know better?

Also

http://companycheck.co.uk/company/SC005364

Liabilities of £12.5 M and assests woth £2.5m

So that makes you less stable than the previous Rangers owners were when their company was liquidated. Right?

'net worth' of £3,900,000

^^^^ I guess the important figure, the one you didn't quote, either escaped you, or you didn't understand it?

So no, not less stable than Rangers Oldco, trading perfectly well, whereas Rangers Oldco had to be liquidated as it was not able to trade.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

:lol::lol: Oh sweet Jesus. How foolish you appear these days Ted.

Your main objection now apparently concerns the inappropriateness of the thread as a venue for this discussion. This, despite the fact that yu unilaterally introduced it here. First of all, you made a tedious and predictable dig at WRK, telling him his team was getting beaten - a clear reference to Celtic's amusing midweek defeat in Italy. When he pointed out that Kilmarnock weren't playing unti Saturday, you responded desperately with: "You do not support Killie, mhoron."

I'm actually starting to feel uncomfortable about this issue now, because it must be so personally embarrassing for you to have your stupidity so exposed.

I have to express serious doubt about the bold part.

''Club as in singular, club as in singular..........'' copyright Tedi 2013 :lol::lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

'net worth' of £3,900,000

^^^^ I guess the important figure, the one you didn't quote, either escaped you, or you didn't understand it?

So no, not less stable than Rangers Oldco, trading perfectly well, whereas Rangers Oldco had to be liquidated as it was not able to trade.

Book value of -£10 million. That's assests - liabilities.

Oldco on the other hand only folded because HMRC told lies about how much was owed to them. Ignore the money from the 'big tax case' like the first teir tax tribunal says you should and oldco still had a positive book value. Even after being raped by Craig Whyte for a few months.

So if the bank or the taxman started treating you like they treated Rangers, you'd be in a lot of trouble. In fact you'd have your PLC liquidated.

Who would you support then?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Book value of -£10 million. That's assests - liabilities.

Oldco on the other hand only folded because HMRC told lies about how much was owed to them. Ignore the money from the 'big tax case' like the first teir tax tribunal says you should and oldco still had a positive book value. Even after being raped by Craig Whyte for a few months.

So if the bank or the taxman started treating you like they treated Rangers, you'd be in a lot of trouble. In fact you'd have your PLC liquidated.

Who would you support then?

I'd have to find a NEW club to support.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Book value of -£10 million. That's assests - liabilities.

Oldco on the other hand only folded because HMRC told lies about how much was owed to them. Ignore the money from the 'big tax case' like the first teir tax tribunal says you should and oldco still had a positive book value. Even after being raped by Craig Whyte for a few months.

So if the bank or the taxman started treating you like they treated Rangers, you'd be in a lot of trouble. In fact you'd have your PLC liquidated.

Who would you support then?

I think the polite expression is egg on face

The £2.5M is current assets, which I'm sure an accounting hot shot like you knows isn't the whole picture as far as assets are concerned.

In fact Aberdeen FC books show fixed assets of £20M and a Total Assets less Current Liabilities figure of £9.759M (yes, I have omitted some numbers too, bet this drone doesn't know what they are)

The bank won't do anything to Aberdeen because Stewart Milne has personally guaranteed them their money

The Tax Man won't treat Aberdeen like they treated TCFKAR because Aberdeen haven't missed PAYE & VAT for 12 months

I'm afraid, however much you want to see it, Aberdeen FC aren't going anywhere

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ed min. You spoiled the fun. I was letting the hole get dug, then wonder how even just valuing pittodrie alone could amount to just £2.5m, never mind additional assets. Guys a plum.

Oh the hole is still there and he'll tumble into it dinna fret

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the polite expression is egg on face

The £2.5M is current assets, which I'm sure an accounting hot shot like you knows isn't the whole picture as far as assets are concerned.

In fact Aberdeen FC books show fixed assets of £20M and a Total Assets less Current Liabilities figure of £9.759M (yes, I have omitted some numbers too, bet this drone doesn't know what they are)

The bank won't do anything to Aberdeen because Stewart Milne has personally guaranteed them their money

The Tax Man won't treat Aberdeen like they treated TCFKAR because Aberdeen haven't missed PAYE & VAT for 12 months

I'm afraid, however much you want to see it, Aberdeen FC aren't going anywhere

Did you have a source for your figures?

Current assets generally mean ones you can sell off within a year. Any bills over £2.5 million in total and you won't be able to pay them.

Say for example the tax man comes along and says you owe £50 million. You'd be fecked.

Hillariously though you think one of Scotlands best businessmen would cough up the £50M even though he had no need to in the slightest.

You also somehow think the big tax case happened because Craig Whyte didn't pay PAYE or VAT. After saying something that dumb, it's maybe best not to try and lecture on business theory.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Did you have a source for your figures?

Current assets generally mean ones you can sell off within a year. Any bills over £2.5 million in total and you won't be able to pay them.

Say for example the tax man comes along and says you owe £50 million. You'd be fecked.

Hillariously though you think one of Scotlands best businessmen would cough up the £50M even though he had no need to in the slightest.

You also somehow think the big tax case happened because Craig Whyte didn't pay PAYE or VAT. After saying something that dumb, it's maybe best not to try and lecture on business theory.

Say for example, I won the Euromillions, problem solved.

What a fucking stupid thing to come away with, of course anyone would be fucked if that sort of bill came along, the problem you have is that unlike the liquidated Rangers, no-one else has been paying players English-type wages, no-one else has been avoiding paying their tax bills.

How in the name of sweet electrical jesus do you even think the Dons would somehow have that sort of unknown liability as any sort of possibility?

We're talking about realities and quantifiables here, I know that is hard for Sevconians to comprehend, but that's how the real world works.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Did you have a source for your figures?

Current assets generally mean ones you can sell off within a year. Any bills over £2.5 million in total and you won't be able to pay them.

Say for example the tax man comes along and says you owe £50 million. You'd be fecked.

Hillariously though you think one of Scotlands best businessmen would cough up the £50M even though he had no need to in the slightest.

You also somehow think the big tax case happened because Craig Whyte didn't pay PAYE or VAT. After saying something that dumb, it's maybe best not to try and lecture on business theory.

Wow. What a fucking imbecile.

I swear every time this guy posts, everyone else's IQ drops a point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Did you have a source for your figures?

 

Current assets generally mean ones you can sell off within a year. Any bills over £2.5 million in total and you won't be able to pay them.

 

Say for example the tax man comes along and says you owe £50 million. You'd be fecked.

 

Hillariously though you think one of Scotlands best businessmen would cough up the £50M even though he had no need to in the slightest.

 

You also somehow think the big  tax case happened because Craig Whyte didn't pay PAYE or VAT. After saying something that dumb, it's maybe best not to try and lecture on business theory.

You are Tedi, and I claim my five pounds.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oldco on the other hand only folded because HMRC told lies about how much was owed to them. Ignore the money from the 'big tax case' like the first teir tax tribunal says you should and oldco still had a positive book value. Even after being raped by Craig Whyte for a few months.

That is an astounding new way of looking at things.

Regarding the positive book value - that was entirely due to fixed asset book values in excess of £100 million. How much did those assets sell for again?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...