Jump to content

pollymac

Gold Members
  • Posts

    3,088
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by pollymac

  1. 90 months since I posted [this], and it's as relevant now as it was back then. OPM to the rescue (or not). Plus ca change, etc.
  2. Not to mention that unless Div et al block specific IP addresses, you can use one IP for many accounts.
  3. Quite glad this thread's still going; hopefully things will get interesting again in the next few weeks.
  4. re ST sales - you can go on the Celtic site and check total and availability by section. Someone on CQN done this a while back (a few days after renewal deadline mid-May) and totted up sales of the plebian sections to 39,000 or thereabouts.
  5. I thought it was quite clear. If they try to sell the assets from the going concern that is Rangers FC for £5.5m then they are very much open to any number of legal challenges, not least: why have player values been written down to £0, where, even the dodgy deals struck in March has them written down to around £10m. HMRC are not the only creditor here and even if they were, they have not said that they'll not challenge it, just that it will now be forced to go down a different route. This may indeed mean that it'll go down the 'second' route as proposed in the CVA doc, or it may mean that there's nary a snowball's chance in hell of it going down the £5.5m route.
  6. The problem with that is that the assets are sold from a going concern, albeit one that's unlikely to go for much longer, to some other entity. In such a case, the assets cannot be undersold prior to liquidation of the (previously) going concern, lest they rouse the wrath of Hector. Again. This is a very different scenario from the (not really a) going concern being liquidated, where the playing assets are no longer assets at all ergo much lower asset value (£5.5m).
  7. Player registrations go to the SFA, hence no asset value in the liquidation column of the CVA doc. Other assets cannot be undersold though. And players can be sold between now and 'then' (or could have been sold - no club would want to pay out cash now surely??)
  8. Aye, HMRC have rules for that kind of thing... Would've gotten away with it were it not for those meddling rules clicky type thing
  9. Wow, that's some leap. He invests a sum of money over a fifteen year period equivalent to around half a single years turnover (I looked it up, its actually a third) but somehow 50% of Celtics budget is down to Desmond. Astonishing.
  10. ...which was my point: moneys added to a club that couldnt be relied on again. A bit of obfuscation is always good for an agenda though.
  11. Regarding Dermott buying/cheating success for Celtic, I understand his input to the club amounts to around half a years turnover. Compare and contrast with the figures I listed earlier.
  12. Were they overpriced, or is that wishful thinking on your part? Presumably these people have been jailed for this fraud?
  13. You do understand that tax avoidance is entirely legal, don't you? Not sure what your next bit has to do with anything
  14. We do call Craig Whyte that; Haughey, I have no opinion on and don't care much for Desmond either. Aww, did I ruin it for you?
  15. It's worth pointing out that since 2000, Rangers business did not grow at all. In fact, it can easily be argued that it shrunk - CL payments went massively up, yet turnover remained largely static. In fact, in recent non-CL years it had decreased from non-CL years in 02 & 03 by a few million. In contrast, during the same period, Celtic's income had pretty much doubled. I'm not sure who it was, possibly that former director Adams?? who said that the Rangers board was filled with guys there for the social aspect and never had much input in the running of the club. Celtic appointed guys from British-American Tobacco, The Bank of England, etc. Even so, had Celtic maintained the spend of Barnes/Dalglish and early O'Neill, they too would be facing meltdown.
×
×
  • Create New...