strichener Posted February 20, 2019 Share Posted February 20, 2019 (edited) On 1/1/2018 at 19:31, Insaintee said: Oh the irony Bottom line dafty there is a potentual bill for £11m + for King. He might not have to pay it all, but he will have to pay some of it. Get your head out your arse and smell more than your own shite. So the day of reckoning is here. How much is King having to pay? Maybe now you can acknowledge that you were the one that was full of shite? Edited February 20, 2019 by strichener 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Insaintee Posted February 20, 2019 Share Posted February 20, 2019 4 hours ago, strichener said: So the day of reckoning is here. How much is King having to pay? Maybe now you can acknowledge that you were the one that was full of shite? How do you work that? https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/865749/rangers-football-club-dave-king-trial-latest-takeover-bill Ps look up the meaning of the word potentual . 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
strichener Posted February 20, 2019 Share Posted February 20, 2019 (edited) 18 hours ago, Insaintee said: How do you work that? https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/865749/rangers-football-club-dave-king-trial-latest-takeover-bill Ps look up the meaning of the word potentual . Looked up potentual but dictionary says no. Want to give me a clue? After all your previous postings on how this was going to cost Dave this and that and everyone would bite his hand off for 20p a share, the latest is that the majority of shareholders have decided not to take up his offer (I think I may have mentioned that this was likely last year) and those that have accepted the offer do not make up 50% of voting rights so they will have their shares returned to them and Dave doesn't have to purchase a solitary additional share. Contrary to your assertion that he would have to pay some of the £11m+ bill. Edited February 21, 2019 by strichener 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kiddy Posted February 21, 2019 Share Posted February 21, 2019 ^^^Can feel the seethe ^^^ 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The DA Posted February 21, 2019 Share Posted February 21, 2019 13 hours ago, strichener said: Looked up potentual but dictionary says no. Want to give me a clue? After all your previous postings on how this was going to cost Dave this and that and everyone would bite his hand off for 20p a share, the latest is that the majority of shareholders have decided not to take up his offer (I think I may have mentioned that this was likely last year) and those that have accepted the offer do not make up 50% of voting rights then they will have their shares returned to them and Dave doesn't have to a solitary additional share. Contrary to your assertion that he would have to pay some of the £11m+ bill. It seems, according to the Sun (I know, I know), that it will still have cost him more than £600K and Rangers another £50K. That must hurt. What's strange about two Sun reports (last week's https://www.thescottishsun.co.uk/news/3885047/rangers-dave-king-shares-takeover-bid-failed-ally-mccoist-club-1872/ and yesterday's https://www.thescottishsun.co.uk/news/3892607/rangers-dave-king-65000-bill-takeover-fail/) is that the later report says he controls 34% of the shares and would have needed 16% acceptance to push him into buying the shares but the earlier report said that 19.82% had accepted, suggesting his bid had succeeded (or failed, depending on whether you;re Dave King or not). I suspect they're a bit confused. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
strichener Posted February 21, 2019 Share Posted February 21, 2019 3 hours ago, The DA said: It seems, according to the Sun (I know, I know), that it will still have cost him more than £600K and Rangers another £50K. That must hurt. What's strange about two Sun reports (last week's https://www.thescottishsun.co.uk/news/3885047/rangers-dave-king-shares-takeover-bid-failed-ally-mccoist-club-1872/ and yesterday's https://www.thescottishsun.co.uk/news/3892607/rangers-dave-king-65000-bill-takeover-fail/) is that the later report says he controls 34% of the shares and would have needed 16% acceptance to push him into buying the shares but the earlier report said that 19.82% had accepted, suggesting his bid had succeeded (or failed, depending on whether you;re Dave King or not). I suspect they're a bit confused. I'm not reading the Sun but I would like to know where they got that £600k figure from. I would guess that has to include the fees for the legal battle as paying 600k for the offer documents would be excessive in the extreme. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Kincardine Posted February 28, 2019 Share Posted February 28, 2019 Wee note to @sugna Going to do your 'stuff' on our interims to Dec 2018, young Angus? Always refreshing to get your take. Results posted here: https://media.rangers.co.uk/uploads/2019/02/Interim-December-18.pdf 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The DA Posted February 28, 2019 Share Posted February 28, 2019 (edited) 7 hours ago, The_Kincardine said: Wee note to @sugna Going to do your 'stuff' on our interims to Dec 2018, young Angus? Always refreshing to get your take. Results posted here: https://media.rangers.co.uk/uploads/2019/02/Interim-December-18.pdf Quote As a result of the above, the Club posted an overall profit for the period of £5.2m. Think I'll wait until I see the full results later this year before I invest in this miraculous money-machine. ETA: similar unaudited interim trading accounts for the 6 months to December 2017 showed a slight loss of £0.9M which had strangely turned into an overall loss of £14.3M by the time the full year's audited accounts were released. Quite the turnaround. You'll forgive us if some of us are a bit... cynical. Edited February 28, 2019 by The DA 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sugna Posted February 28, 2019 Author Share Posted February 28, 2019 8 hours ago, The_Kincardine said: Wee note to @sugna Going to do your 'stuff' on our interims to Dec 2018, young Angus? Always refreshing to get your take. Results posted here: https://media.rangers.co.uk/uploads/2019/02/Interim-December-18.pdf I went to have a go, but there are no auditors' remarks there. That's what I have looked at for the last few years: auditors saying "these accounts show that this company is not a going concern, but the directors have said that they will put in loans so that this fact does not lead to winding-up within the current FY". The only really relevant thing about Rangers accounts, IMHO, is what they indicate about whether the club can continue. The details of King's offer, and whether he did actually get as far as putting all that money into an escrowed/ring-fenced account, are not clear to me: I wouldn't bet on whether than happened on either side; and if it it happened, I wouldn't bet on the amount. But with those caveats, the only other thing that would be of interest to me would be whether there was "that" money accessible, so that they don't need to apply for expensive external loans. Perhaps they don't need the loans the actual accounts identified, but that isn't mentioned. Those are the two things that I'd be curious about, but I wouldn't expect either to appear in interim/unaudited accounts. It would be very worrying if a club that had been in Europe and has had season ticket sales of over 40,000 in the last 6 months didn't make a substantial profit in the "earning" half of the year. I see that it cost £10m to make an extra £15m. Sounds like good business; but also a slight gamble, as the cost base growth may be "more fixed" than the income growth. Dunno about that, really. The acid test will come in the summer: will the club be sustainably run, and building its playing strength; or will it be forced to balance things by "selling more than it buys"? No idea, but either way the media's touting of Morelos at upwards of £20m has been... interesting. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
muirkirk nil Posted February 28, 2019 Share Posted February 28, 2019 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sugna Posted February 28, 2019 Author Share Posted February 28, 2019 52 minutes ago, muirkirk nil said: That does look pretty bad on the face of it, but as I indicated above the second half of the season wouldn't generally be expected to be an "earning" half; and there are already audited accounts saying that more money is required. So the overall effect is still that of a club that isn't yet sustainable, and that was already in the public domain. The unaudited accounts looked very much like a bit of PR, and now look even more so after taking this news into account; but it was already known that King isn't the most honest or straightforward source of information, and a bit of spin was bound to be included in anything coming from him. (I suppose that it looks a bit glibber than expected, in the light of another secured loan coming straight on the heels of the PR piece, though.) Perhaps it answers the question about whether King's "ear-marked" money would be available to Rangers post-TAB stramash: it looks like it probably won't. Overall, it's business as usual; and indeed the only different I can see from last year's equivalent secured loan is that some tough negotiating from Rangers' lawyers has managed to get a stauncher witness for the Close Bros signature: this year it is Jason Peter Hill; last year it was Benedict O'Mahony. Seriously. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bennett Posted February 28, 2019 Share Posted February 28, 2019 What's Rugger guys view on this? -3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Kincardine Posted March 1, 2019 Share Posted March 1, 2019 On 2/28/2019 at 09:00, sugna said: I went to have a go, but there are no auditors' remarks there. That's what I have looked at for the last few years: auditors saying "these accounts show that this company is not a going concern, but the directors have said that they will put in loans so that this fact does not lead to winding-up within the current FY". The only really relevant thing about Rangers accounts, IMHO, is what they indicate about whether the club can continue. The details of King's offer, and whether he did actually get as far as putting all that money into an escrowed/ring-fenced account, are not clear to me: I wouldn't bet on whether than happened on either side; and if it it happened, I wouldn't bet on the amount. But with those caveats, the only other thing that would be of interest to me would be whether there was "that" money accessible, so that they don't need to apply for expensive external loans. Perhaps they don't need the loans the actual accounts identified, but that isn't mentioned. Those are the two things that I'd be curious about, but I wouldn't expect either to appear in interim/unaudited accounts. It would be very worrying if a club that had been in Europe and has had season ticket sales of over 40,000 in the last 6 months didn't make a substantial profit in the "earning" half of the year. I see that it cost £10m to make an extra £15m. Sounds like good business; but also a slight gamble, as the cost base growth may be "more fixed" than the income growth. Dunno about that, really. The acid test will come in the summer: will the club be sustainably run, and building its playing strength; or will it be forced to balance things by "selling more than it buys"? No idea, but either way the media's touting of Morelos at upwards of £20m has been... interesting. That's fair enough - and thanks for taking the time. The only issue I'd have is: "will the club be sustainably run, and building its playing strength; or will it be forced to balance things by "selling more than it buys"?" To use a phrase you didn't, but could have, used I'd say 'Both and'. We'll clearly offload Alfie. We may well ship out Tavernier. How much those two bring in will determine a lot wrt both our finances and our squad - especially given we'll lose Kent and Worrall. Another window of book-balancing, transfer speculation and season-ticket promotion! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Insaintee Posted March 9, 2019 Share Posted March 9, 2019 On 20/02/2019 at 17:57, strichener said: Looked up potentual but dictionary says no. Want to give me a clue? After all your previous postings on how this was going to cost Dave this and that and everyone would bite his hand off for 20p a share, the latest is that the majority of shareholders have decided not to take up his offer (I think I may have mentioned that this was likely last year) and those that have accepted the offer do not make up 50% of voting rights so they will have their shares returned to them and Dave doesn't have to purchase a solitary additional share. Contrary to your assertion that he would have to pay some of the £11m+ bill. So your saying it cost nothing? Interesting, I used to think you were intellegent. But what ever. PS I'm not paying any rent in your head 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
strichener Posted March 9, 2019 Share Posted March 9, 2019 8 hours ago, Insaintee said: So your saying it cost nothing? Interesting, I used to think you were intellegent. But what ever. PS I'm not paying any rent in your head Ha ha. To be honest your opinion on my intellect is less formed than my 6 year old nephew. So just so I am clear - Howany shares were sold to King and at what cost? How many people "bit his hand off"? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Insaintee Posted March 10, 2019 Share Posted March 10, 2019 21 hours ago, strichener said: Ha ha. To be honest your opinion on my intellect is less formed than my 6 year old nephew. So just so I am clear - Howany shares were sold to King and at what cost? How many people "bit his hand off"? Just so I'm clear - your 6 your old nephew is clearly more intelligent than you are. Tell me what the POTENTUAL exposure King had on this? Tell me how much cash he had to move out and demenostrate to the court he had to make the offer? Being a delisted company, there is no requirement to report how many shares were bought by King. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ken Fitlike Posted March 25, 2019 Share Posted March 25, 2019 Just so I'm clear - your 6 your old nephew is clearly more intelligent than you are. Tell me what the POTENTUAL exposure King had on this? Tell me how much cash he had to move out and demenostrate to the court he had to make the offer? Being a delisted company, there is no requirement to report how many shares were bought by King.Why are they delisted? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steelmen Posted March 25, 2019 Share Posted March 25, 2019 Dave is just appointing the right advisor... takes time to properly vet these people, he’s thorough in his background checks. The Spfl could learn a thing or two from him [emoji23] 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
strichener Posted March 26, 2019 Share Posted March 26, 2019 On 3/10/2019 at 15:23, Insaintee said: Tell me what the POTENTUAL exposure King had on this? Tell me how much cash he had to move out and demenostrate to the court he had to make the offer? What has potential exposure to do with this? You previously stated that On 1/1/2018 at 19:31, Insaintee said: Oh the irony Bottom line dafty there is a potentual bill for £11m + for King. He might not have to pay it all, but he will have to pay some of it. And the reality is that he paid none of it. On 3/10/2019 at 15:23, Insaintee said: Being a delisted company, there is no requirement to report how many shares were bought by King. You are quite clearly speaking on a subject that you have no knowledge of. I'll leave it you with a piece of your own advice: On 1/1/2018 at 19:31, Insaintee said: Get your head out your arse and smell more than your own shite. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Insaintee Posted March 26, 2019 Share Posted March 26, 2019 5 hours ago, strichener said: What has potential exposure to do with this? You previously stated that And the reality is that he paid none of it. You are quite clearly speaking on a subject that you have no knowledge of. I'll leave it you with a piece of your own advice: The one laid down by court of session And you know this how? Oh the irony! 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.