Ah yes, the battling boings. We hear so much of them, are they an important part of Scottish history?Quote:
Originally Posted by Jack Hackett
Sent from my HTC One mini 2 using Tapatalk
Printable View
Ah yes, the battling boings. We hear so much of them, are they an important part of Scottish history?Quote:
Originally Posted by Jack Hackett
Sent from my HTC One mini 2 using Tapatalk
Quote:
Originally Posted by southsider
True, but the figure originates from John James' 'story' that they diddled Scottish Water by diverting it from a local church.
The claim he's making is that they avoided the 95k per month charges they would have received for metered usage by 'doing a Winston'* on their water meter... nothing to do with standing charges, etc.
* Still Game fans will know what that means :wink:
It's probably more about the battle for the bong these days.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bostonhibby
If they do get the water turned off it will become Battle of the Pong.Quote:
Originally Posted by GreenLake
GGTTH
They'll be up to their knees in turgid stuffQuote:
Originally Posted by southern hibby
Since 1690, I believe. I'm wondering if the celebrated Battle of Hampden Park...where 200 fearless loyalist warriors defended their defeated champions against thousands of rampaging 'feenyin bassas'...will be remembered with marches by eejits with flutes and drums 32 6 years from now?Quote:
Originally Posted by Bostonhibby
If they have been siphoning water from elsewhere in the past maybe the £95k is partly made up of repayments iro charges avoided.
[QUOTE=Jack Hackett;4844586]Since 1690, I believe. I'm wondering if the celebrated Battle of Hampden Park...where 200 fearless loyalist warriors defended their defeated champions against thousands of rampaging 'feenyin bassas'...will be remembered with marches by eejits with flutes and drums 32 6 years from now?[/QUOTE
It was 300 fearless warriors, there are rumours coming out of Hollywood that a potential blockbuster is to be produced re telling the epic tale of those 300 martyrs who sacrificed their freedom to protect Rapeepil and Raplayers from the murderous mutants of The East. Gerard Butler is being lined up to play the part of the brave loyalist defender who used the Fenian child as a shield to protect him from the crazed green hordes of Dunedin as they rampaged upon the western fields of Mount Florida. Michael Fassbender has refused to confirm if he will be playing the role of the evil Lord of Exhuberance, King Roderick of Hibernia but Hollywood insiders insist the deal is close to being delivered...
[QUOTE=fat freddy;4844615][emoji1] [emoji1]Quote:
Originally Posted by Jack Hackett
Hearing Jamesy Cottar will get the Lee Wallace role.
Sent from my HTC One mini 2 using Tapatalk
[QUOTE=fat freddy;4844615]Can't see Mr Butler being a brave loyalist anything tbh.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jack Hackett
[QUOTE=BH Hibs;4844679]Thought the same about Joey BartonQuote:
Originally Posted by fat freddy
No need to 'reckon' - it's a fact. Obviously not going to happen as no-one with even a scintilla of intelligence would put any cash into that money pit. King wants out before the sevconians really turn up the heat on the promised 'over investment' which of course is pure fantasy.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bostonhibby
My hope is they hit the rocks again and King is at the helm when it happens.Quote:
Originally Posted by magpie1892
That club's behaviour towards Hibs after the cup final was shocking - trying to grass us up and getting all their pals to slag us off.
Really pathetic.
I'd love RaPeepul to go down the sewer once and for all but I think us winning the Cup will be our only hoped for miracle for the foreseeable.
King is the loudmouthed sleaze bag who shouts 'drinks for everyone' in the Star Wars bar, then locks himself in the toilet, hoping to squeeze his fat bum out the window before the mutants realize he isn't around.Quote:
Originally Posted by magpie1892
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dashing Bob S
Where's Obi-Wan Kenobi when you need him....
Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
If they needed an £8m injection of cash to stay afloat last year, goodness knows how much they'll need this year now that they're paying around £20k/week each for Barton, Kranjcar, Hill, Senderos. Add in the big pay rises from £5k/week to £14k/week for Waghorn and Tav they'll be shelling out an additional weekly wage of around £100k just for those 6 players. Thats over £5m per year. The team finishing second in the Premiership last year got just over £2m in prize money. Slightly higher gates/ticket prices etc. may help but I reckon their deficit is looking like it could be even larger this season. Hope it all goes pear shaped for them very soon.Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
They are already!!Quote:
Originally Posted by Bostonhibby
At least we know where Jabba the hutt is...Quote:
Originally Posted by Keekaboo
Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
You are very obviously using a different valuer to the one used by Duffer and Feckwit during the administration process. :devil:
Surely-to-fxxx if they DID go bust again, Regan/Doncaster & Co would be really hard-pressed (if not impossible !!) to save them again ??Quote:
Originally Posted by Keekaboo
These figures are bad but wait until the guaranteed costs of ...... (tee-hee) .... the no-doubt mega-bonuses that'll be paid out for ........ (s******) the expected and presumed WINNING of the SPL along with ............. (Oh Jezuz, ma sides !!) the SCOTTISH CUP are added-on !!??Quote:
Originally Posted by GlesgaeHibby
Barton suspended indefinitely. "unmitigated shambles...poor on the pitch and disrespectful off it". Christ that could apply to the majority of that shameful mob.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Account are out .....
Pre tax profit way down!
Not the way I read it, albeit very quickly.Quote:
Originally Posted by blaikie
Losses are down from 7m to 3m.
The paragraph on Going Concern is interesting. Maybe someone can cut and paste it.
Sent from my SM-A510F using Tapatalk
How much has gone the over investors way?[emoji6]Quote:
Originally Posted by blaikie
Sent from my HTC One mini 2 using Tapatalk
http://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/2016...e4f7e2d02a.jpgQuote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Looks like they got a loan in October of about £3m but need another in March?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
GOING CONCERNQuote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
The Board of Directors (“the Board”) are required to prepare the statutory nancial statements on the going concern basis unless it is inappropriate to presume that the Group and Parent Company will continue in business. In satisfaction of this responsibility the Board have considered the Group’s ability to meet its liabilities as they fall due.
The Group’s business activities, together with the factors likely to a ect its future development and performance are set out in the Strategic Report. The Strategic Report also describes how the Group manages its capital, its liquidity risk and its exposure to credit risk.
The Group meets its day to day working capital requirements through existing cash facilities, investor loans and nance leases. Management information tools including budgets and cash ow forecasts are used to monitor and manage current and future liquidity. The Board acknowledges that there is a level of uncertainty in the general economic environment which may impact the trading position of its customers and suppliers.
The Board has undertaken a recent and thorough review of the Group’s forecasts and the associated risks. These forecasts extend for a period beyond one year from the date of approval of these nancial statements. The extent of this review re ected the current economic environment, the Club’s current and projected trading and position in Scottish football.
Key assumptions in respect of the Group’s forecasts are discussed within note 1 to the nancial statements.
GOING CONCERN (CONTINUED)
At the time of preparation, the forecast identi ed that the Group would require up to £4.0m by way of debt or equity funding by the end of season 2016/2017 in order to meet its liabilities as they fall due. Following the progression of the team to the Semi Finals of the Scottish League Cup, the funding requirement is now anticipated to be £3.75m. The rst tranche of funding amounting to £2.9m has been received from investors in October 2016, with further funds forecast to be required in March 2017.
Further funding may be required during the 2017/18 season, the quantum of which is dependent on future football performance and European football participation.
The Board of Directors has received undertakings from certain investors that they will provide nancial support to the Group and have satis ed themselves as to the validity of these undertakings and that the individuals have the means and authority to provide such funding as and when it is required. The Board acknowledge that had these assurances not been secured then a material uncertainty would exist which may cast doubt over the Group’s ability to continue as a going concern and therefore its ability to realise its assets and discharge its liabilities in the normal course of business. With the appropriate assurances obtained and the continued support of the investors, the Board believe that any such uncertainty has been removed.
The nancial support to be made available more than covers the projected shortfall for this season and beyond. The Board further understands that additional facilities can be made available as and when required for investment in the team.
As such, after making the enquiries referred to above, the Board of Directors believe that there is a reasonable expectation that the Group will at all times have adequate resources to continue in operational existence for the foreseeable future. Accordingly they continue to adopt the going concern basis in preparing this report and the statutory nancial statements.
The Going Concerns are making it public knowledge the finances at the rangers are dependent on securing outside money. Obviously it doesn't state just how much is needed but it must be a significant amount to highlight it in such a dramatic set of wording.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozyhibby
update - (Billy Whizz has just posted the rest of the Going Concerns which actually does state how much is required)
Well this definitely puts to bed Kings statement about pumping his kids inheritance into them.
(Still puts to bed Kings investing his kids inheritance)
GGTTH
Wow, they're already looking for emergency funding to see out the season..... again.
I had a quick scan as well -Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
Earnings before Interest Tax and Depreciation (EBITDA) (£0.1m) (2015 – (£6.9m))
Full 60 pages of there account on there website ...... Interesting to see they spent 3m+ on 11 player registrations over the year.
The "over investment" must be about to start then!Quote:
Originally Posted by Keekaboo
King took over the wrong club. He'd already be winning if he'd "saved" the yams
Sent from my HTC One mini 2 using Tapatalk
Quantum. It's been a while since that word was seen on this thread.
The reference to the 'Group' requiring money and the 'Group' being vulnerable as a going concern without additional monies is a bit of a puzzler.
Some time ago there were statements released informing any shortfalls by the rangers football club would be absorbed overall by 'the Group'.
Anybody have any information how it is now the 'Group' which is at risk without additional monies being raised.
Sorry if this has been answered before or is considered semantic but I am slightly puzzled.
GGTTH
I don't see King staying at sevco much longer. He's £20m in the hole from his previous dealings with the club when Murray was owner. He needs this back as he doesn't actually have any money and this is the only reason he's at the club. Sadly for King, the club does not have any money either and, in fact, desperately needs the mythical £30 million 'over investment' King promised when he took over. King's recently been told that if he wants to fly first class from ZA to see the huns 'going for 55' then he has to pay for these £12,000 tickets himself - hence not at Hampden last Sunday.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bostonhibby
So what's the point in King hanging around? He's just going to get more grief as the penny finally drops with the ******ed hun hordes that King is potless. Further, despite the hun trumpeting that they'd 'got rid' of Ashley, he still has Rangers Retail Limited sewn up for the next six years, and Ibrox requires urgent and expensive maintenance - so it's actually even worse than King thought. Tragic stuff.
If anybody on this board walked in there tomorrow and said we'd take everything, all the debts, off TLK's hands for a quid, they'd own that mess. All they'd need to do is bull**** the Record about off-the-charts wealth and overinvestment.Quote:
Originally Posted by magpie1892
Yep, been pointing that way for a while, unless there's a rich mug out there who sees their "traditions" as worth saving. Wouldn't rule it out but the way they are pointing just really doesn't look like what King was describing at the outset, good entertainment though.Quote:
Originally Posted by magpie1892
"Rich" and "Mug" don't often go together. There is so much needing funded at so many levels that I think its down to the "powers that be" to sort it out, respectfully.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bostonhibby
King has been amazingly quiet of late
Murray did well to get a quid for deadco. I know I am not alone in finding it a source of genuine delight watching the most odious club in world football stumble from one self-inflicted crisis to the next. The summer signings were a masterstroke - I think two of the 11 players they signed are getting a regular game?Quote:
Originally Posted by Dashing Bob S
I wouldn't rule it out but I think it's highly unlikely. If such a person existed, would we would not seen them by now? In time to prevent the first liquidation? Sevco need someone - like, yesterday - who values the club's nauseating traditions to such an extent that they are prepared to come in and immediately write off £50m of their own money just to stabilise the club's premises and playing squad. There's a reason most rich people stay rich.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bostonhibby
The arithmetic increasingly points towards another liquidation event - for my money that's far more likely than some hun 'sugar daddy' making an unheralded appearance. I'm not sure if I want to watch the hun scratch around in midtable for the forseeable future or for them to go bust again. If the latter happened, it's hard to see how they would get parachuted straight back into the senior league like last time - nor how they could 'transfer' their tainted honours to another new club yet again.
As you observe, it is good entertainment, and we're only just getting started.
How much did they get from winning the Scottish Cup.... ahhh. Hahahahahahaha
I think you may well be correct in a meltdown. It may not be a liquidation though. It could be a yam style administration which would free them from the huge hurdles of the Green/Ashley continuation contracts.Quote:
Originally Posted by magpie1892
There is certainly an air of desperation of obtaining much needed capital and either as you say a very deep pocketed benefactor goes aboard or there is at some point going to be either administration or possibly liquidation.
It is certainly appearing that way. The signs are there.
GGTTH
Must be time for Brian Kennedy to put in an appearance.
That is complete dereliction of duty by the auditors; basically saying the Board are confident it will be OK but they have done nothing to verify this themselves. Shameful.Quote:
Originally Posted by Billy Whizz
Presumably nothing in these accounts re contingent liabilities for repairs to the stadium.
The banking crisis showed that auditors, ratings agencies etc are too conflicted by the need for work to do the job properly. I don't trust any of them.Quote:
Originally Posted by ehf
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Green Goblin
In fairness to the tragic hat, he kept his 4 year old team in the contest right up until the 92nd minute. Plucky Losers thone huns.
How do you know that they have done nothing to verify it?Quote:
Originally Posted by ehf
Sent from my SM-A510F using Tapatalk
There's a couple of people on here who could pontificate with some accuracy about whether or not the zombie club would be able to secure a CVA and avoid liquidation when they run out of money again. Though I think it can be said with some certainty that Ashley wouldn't take 3p in the pound..!Quote:
Originally Posted by Sham69
The potential debts are nowhere near the levels when they were liquidated as per 2012. Methinks an administration would be the more likely outcome however it would be fraught with potential other confusions as per quoting per Bomber Brown 'Wheres ra deeds'.Quote:
Originally Posted by magpie1892
I certainly agree there is some kind of administration or even liquidation event on the horizon as per the levels of anxiety of obtaining capital.
GGTTH
Without knowing the exact make up of the creditors, that's almost impossible to tell.Quote:
Originally Posted by magpie1892
They had debts at the end of June of about 15m. Close on 3m of that is HMRC, who wouldn't vote for a CVA.
There's no way of knowing what the attitude of the others would be.
Sent from my SM-A510F using Tapatalk
With Rangers Retail Limited being a separate company to TRIFC, I'm not sure that the latter going into admin as a means of stiffing Ashley, for one, would work?Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
This reminds me so much of the countdown to Christmas when I was a bairn. We've all been so good this year, I'm certain we're going to get some ace presents.
Indeed. Dave King himself voted against the last CVA.Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Presumably he thought there was a better chance of his raping a zombie club for his £20m back, and anything else he could get his thieving hands on.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozyhibby
Turns out he was right, but completely outflanked by Charlie Green.
This time, there's nothing but existing debts, and impending new ones. Who's going to fix the three stands' roofs without getting the money up front? Do you think Queens Park FC will give them tick for the use of Hampden while Ibrox is getting fixed? And all those lovely players' contracts...
Talk about chickens coming home to roost!
Administration doesn't get rid of the onerous contracts only liquidation does that.
Could someone confirm?
Clubs going into administration for the first time get a 15 point deduction. For a second round of administration it's a 25 point deduction.
We will maybe get to find out whether The Rangers consider themselves a new club or not.
There's no argument IMO.Quote:
Originally Posted by shan_lambert
It's 25 points for a second insolvency within 5 years, even if the owner of the club has changed.
Sent from my SM-A510F using Tapatalk
Is there anything in the accounts which indicates how much the combined supporters' group Club 1872 is contributing? I suspect that the directors may be relying on that for a significant proportion of this season's shortfall in return for the promise of a debt to equity exchange at some indeterminate future date.
For next season, a significant risk to them is that some of the season ticket holders will drift away if they don't see a serious title challenge being on. The same could happen to the 1872 input if they don't see the directors "investing" serious sums.
Frankly, you, sir, are no fun at all. :greengrinQuote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
Quote:
Originally Posted by magpie1892
Sorry, but I can't possibly agree with the part in bold.
:greengrin
Sure that's right, known as the smell test.Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
Whatever they call it next time if it smells the same as the old club that's good enough for a 25 point deduction. Unless Reagan and Doncaster decide to help them out in some way again.
‘My view of what it will take to make Rangers competitive again is bottom end £30m but probably £50m — over the next four years,’ King told Sportsmail.
‘From the discussions I have to date I think there are other people who would come with me. ‘But I would say I would probably have to put in £30m of the £50m over the period of time. And I could probably get other people to put in £20m.
‘Would I be willing to invest £30m despite what happened previously? Of course. Sure.’
Dave King, Daily Mail, 2014 - immediately after passing the SFA's "fit and proper person" test (despite failing two out of three of the prerequisites)
I'm sure he's just getting the "other people" to put their £20m in first.Quote:
Originally Posted by Keekaboo
My experience on corporate finance? Zilch - only time I read about financial news items is on this board when money threads are posted about us, the the them and Hertz. But I do have an opinion: nowt will happen again this year and the Huns will struggle through till they can raise some bawbees from STs or somewhere. The reason for this? We can't be THAT lucky twice in a calendar year can we - grubbed them in a spectacular manner in the SC final and then they go kaput soon after? That would be football porn...I mean gold:greengrin
Is there any way (however remote) that Whyte may win the court case and the assets of the rangers are transferred to him again ? Now that would be funny.
Genuinely, can't see an insolvency event coming any time soon.
If the group who hibs were financially dependent on had posted going concerns that they required significant additional money to maintain being kept afloat I would be changing my breeks.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kavinho
GGTTH
When you see these year on year though and the funding is found, you get better control of your sphincter muscles!
Revenue up 6m and losses fallen by 4m.
Can only see Revenue for them Increasing again this year.
They are looking more attractive than before to an investor (starting from a very low base of course), so I don't see them struggling to find a relatively 'short term' funding option - even if it's not TLK'S own funds.
Now that said, they are clearly not out of the woods yet.
For me, it's dependent on the attitude of the external funders.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kavinho
3.75m is repayable on demand. The rest by December 17. If the former suddenly needed their cash.......[emoji48]
And don't forget HMRC. 2.8M IIRC.
Sent from my SM-A510F using Tapatalk
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kavinho
That would be true, if it wasn't for the fact that their losses are only so low because they're putting off paying for essential repairs to the stadium.
Anybody buying the Club from King would have to be prepared to spend millions on Ibrox... or continue to fund the Council with brown envelopes.
The Hmrc will have been included in their 'bills falling due' calculations.Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
And did they not say that 2.9m of funding has been provided this month, with more expected in March17.
It'll only be demanded if they don't service it, so it's not like they have to have it resting in an account to meet that as yet undemanded figure.
Not saying it won't be expensive funding,but I expect they'll find a way..
The HMRC figure is over and above the loans repayable on demand.
They had 9m of current liabilities. 3.75m of that is loans, 5.2m other creditors; of the latter, 2.8m due to HMRC.
How that has been dealt with since June is anyone's guess. Given their past experience with HMRC, that's the debt that should have been attacked first.
Sent from my SM-A510F using Tapatalk
Please tell me this is not a serious comment.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kavinho
Daily Mail reporting that their investor debt has risen to £10 million, wheres Mr King and his tens of millions now?
Unless the Daily Mail has access to the inner workings of the club, they're looking at the accounts.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jones28
It was 10m at the end of June. A further 2.9m has been borrowed since then.
Sent from my SM-A510F using Tapatalk
My only point is its an improvement since before!!Quote:
Originally Posted by magpie1892
They are less of a basket case than they used to be. They have more access to bigger income than before.!
By the way the full quote should read.
They are looking more attractive than before to an investor (starting from a very low base of course).
Drilling into the accounts, they're not really less of a basket case. Their Net Current Liabilities, which is a measure of their short term solvency, haven't moved in the 12 months since the last accounts.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kavinho
Sent from my SM-A510F using Tapatalk
You've got a point, they aren't an attractive position for an investor but they're not as bad as they were. I think they'll limp onwards until they're OK.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kavinho
I actually think relegation would see fans rally round and support the club as they could rehash the old hard done to because Scottish football is out to get them, If they finished 9th or 10th I'd actually see more fans walking away as they realised their future is just as a poor SPFL club.
With the new Rangers, a lot depends on them keeping the fans on side. That may not be easy as they realise just how big the gap with Celtic is.
These accounts show a turnover of £22m. Celtics last accounts had a turnover of £52m and that was considered a bad year for them. This season they are expected to turnover £80m.
As the Sevconians begin to realise that this gap is not closing and they are going to be Espanyol to Celtics Barca, they may start to lose interest like they did in the 80's before the Bank of Scotland started funding Murray's crazy spending.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
What I'v been saying for ages - today's Hun just doesn't seem to have any knowledge or memory of what things were like for them BEFORE the 'Money years' !. The vast majority of them thought as soon as they made to to the SPL they'd be challenging for all the honours going - truly, they are without doubt, the dumbest support in football !Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozyhibby
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kavinho
There is no improvement on the balance sheet. Then you need to factor in the cost of repairs required to Ibrox, and the millions of pounds leaving Ibrox to pay the wages of Barton, Krancjar, Garner, Senderos, Hill, etc. No commercial income, etc.
'They have more access to a bigger income than before.!' - I really don't understand what this means.
The RoI on any money 'invested' in the hun at the present moment would be to lose the ****ing lot.
Quote:
Originally Posted by magpie1892
I'm just saying they will have bigger receipts this year when compared to last. - more punters watching more telly money and more prize money.
Bit of double counting re the wages. They'd have counted them when establishing what payments are falling due, before saying they need to plug a gap of less than 4m, of which they've said they've found 2.9m this month(based only on an above post).
Yes, they've put off maintenance, yes the place is ropey and needs it.
But its not the balance sheet bit I'm taking about.. its the cash flow. I mean its not about fixing the building, just if they can afford to keep paying the lighting and water bills!
We're not really far off the same point.
But the bit you took exception to earlier was just me saying this year, they are worth a bigger look compared to last year if you are an Ann Budge type character willing to take the risk and get a better interest rate back than your bank would give you.
In October 2015, Ibrox and Auchenhowie were valued at a total of £75.5m. In the accounts, after provisions for depreciation and impairment, the pair are valued at a total of £40.4m. That’s a £35m drop in a year suggesting that there has been a significant issue with either Ibrox or Auchenhowie.
Any accountants explain this bit to me?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Originally deliberately over valued, in my opinion, to improve the look of their balance sheet,Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozyhibby
There has been a change in the way in which accounts must show the value of buildings. They now have to be depreciated, where there was no such need before.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozyhibby
Our own accounts had the same issue....although the effect on the Balance Sheet was much less dramatic.
If you look at the RFC accounts, there will be a note showing what the buildings would have been valued at last year, had they been on the "new" basis.
IMHO, it's a bit of an academic issue. Buildings are not necessarily worth what they are shown at in the accounts.
Sent from my SM-A510F using Tapatalk
I'm just wondering why it had to be devalued this year?Quote:
Originally Posted by Weststandwanab
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
To comply with the new Accounting Standard, which only came into effect this year. We did it, as should every company that has buildings.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozyhibby
Sent from my SM-A510F using Tapatalk
I recall something about Ashley getting first dibs on some assets or other if they went into liquidation or down the tubes again.
Has this changed when I wiznae looking?
It did when his loan was repaid.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jack
He had a security....but only to the extent of the loan. That security was released when the loan was repaid.
Sent from my SM-A510F using Tapatalk
Elsewhere in the accounts....
http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/1...re_not_liable/
Sent from my SM-A510F using Tapatalk
What if the Club has changed? :cbQuote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
I am no expert but surely if we have learned anything from the Oldco and Yams implosions its that the the value of the assets Football Clubs place on their stadiums (particularly in the book value of Tincastle and Ipox) is nowhere near the amount that will be realised in any fire sale? Not seen the accounts but if the buildings were valued at the amounts that the administrators recovered from theiir sale, then how would the accounts look? After all it was only a few years ago so that should be a decent benchmark figure........Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
Accounts are prepared on the basis that the company is a Going Concern. Hence the value should reflect that.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Falcon
As for the first question.....beat it, that's been done to death on here [emoji48] [emoji48]
Sent from my SM-A510F using Tapatalk
I have not read the 1178 pages on this thread but did I read somewhere that the need an additional £8 Million over in the next year just to keep the lights on?
Possibly, but it would be speculation rather than any informed opinion. :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Famous Fiver
The accounts say they need 3.75m to get to the end of the season. They've had 2.9m of that in the past few weeks.
Sent from my SM-A510F using Tapatalk
I think it's on page 742... :greengrinQuote:
Originally Posted by Famous Fiver
Nearly 4 million pound to keep the lights on.Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
These benefactors will have to dig deep once again.
GGTTH
Quote:
Originally Posted by Famous Fiver
LED lamps?Quote:
Originally Posted by Sham69
It seems like every six months the directors loan money to the club/company just to keep going until the end of the season.
At the beginning of this season, the amount still owed to those 'benefactors' had reached 10 million, which would have increased to 13 million with October's loan.
Does loaning the club money count as part of King's fabled 50 million investment, and has there been any info released on how and when they plan to pay that money back?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Keekaboo
Of the 10m, 3.5 is repayable on demand, with the rest due in December 17. No idea about the new 2.9m.
Sent from my SM-A510F using Tapatalk
They are now up to second in the leaugue If thats where they finish thats nearly a million quid they get Cup runs and half season tickets too
What is the up to date position re Club Merchandise Strips etc is Ashley still taking the Lions Share from this
I dont think they will have expected to finish 2nd Aberdeen really should have that in the bag given they have a settled. Squad
Rangers wage budget will be about 5 times that of Aberdeen. They should be finishing second.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ronniekirk