Bluedell

When you look at that picture, it puts a question mark against NC's original title of "the beautiful game".

Everything's relative. Don't know if that's the exact one, but you get the idea. :double shudder:

On an unrelated subject, NC, glad to see your avatar has changed back. The previous one was unnerving. :shudder:

As for DD, he is just allowing Celtic to run as a stand-alone business. He probably has no plans to put any further cash into it, and he can allow one year of bad results. It'll be interesting to see the reaction if it continues, as I said above.

I haven't seen their 2009 accounts but I assume that they only made �£2m despite being in the CL due to their high wage bill. They didn't spend big in Jan because they were so confident they would win the league without it. they'll make some money from the revised europa Cup but I'm surprised that they have spent so much (relatively) this close season, but perhaps they have been forced to given their squad, in the same way as we had to last year. I expect they will make a loss this year, but they have the scope to do so given the low level of debt. However they may start to get a bit more worried if they fail to win the league again over the next couple of years.

Our net debt at June 2008 was �£21.6m The general estimate of our net debt as at 30/6/09 is �£30m. It's a difficult figure to estimate as it depends on receipt of season ticket cash and the timing of transfer fees in and out, none of which we have access to. The press do seem to be using the figure of �£30m so either they have had it leaked to them by SDM, they have used some of my posts or they have stuck a finger in the air. I feel it is probably the first of these. It's not the first time SDM has subtley leaked some of the financial information. In theory it can't be more than �£35m given that is our current bank facility, and given we have received some ST cash in before the year end, �£30m seems a reasonable estimate, although it may be a little on the light side, given my estimate of a loss of �£12m, although the above is back of a fag packet as B_S has said.

Craig, both clubs use the net debt position which i think is fair enough, as it's only a snapshot. Celtic just try and ignore accounting rules and exclude some of their debt. Rangers, for example had �£11m cash on hand in June 2007 and �£27m of other loans, and everybody talked about the net debt of �£16m.

Where Scottish football could be in 15 years is a worrying thought.

The problem is that the income that the clubs take in don't cover their costs as they stand at the moment, so it's difficult to reduce prices. I know that reducing the prices may increase demand, but it's a big "may" and chances are that revenue overall would probably fall. It eventually will leade to clubs paying less, so the calibre of players will fall, which will also put people off going, when there are so many other demands on people's time these days. It's a good point that tyou have made but there's no easy solution to it, and a vicious circle of lower player's wages in the SPL could have an even bigger impact on attendances than even ticket prices do.

Their lack of objectivity gets a little tiresome at times.

I can't see the picture as I can't access tinypic since I was moved to a new server in work, but the foul definitely started outside the box but there was contact inside the box as well, and don't think that should be an issue. The porblem with it being wrong is that they will make so much noise about it that when something similar happens again the ref may think twice about it.

Accounting rules require elements of the Preference Shares and the Convertible Preferred Ordinary Shares to be classified as debt. They want to try and make their accounts appear slightly better than they are so they use the phrase "bank debt" and ignore the �£3m that you refer to that they should add onto it. Their 2007 accounts show their debt in the correct manner, but their 2008 accounts exclude the net debt note and they now tend to only refer to "net bank debt. (one of a number of changes they made in their 2008 accounts to try and make them appear better.) Their net debt should be calculated as follows: Cash 10,489 Bank loan (12,000) Pref shares (3,027) Total (4,538) Hope this explains it without getting too technical. Out of interest, why are you asking?

History is all that it is - history. Why can't we be ambitious and look to create a new history elsewhere? For me, money would be a secondary concern. I'd welcome the new challenge, and would be great to play better teams every week. As for Scottish football, I'm more concerned about Rangers than Scottish football. I don't see why Rangers should hold back fulfilling its full potential just to support an uneconomic football league.

That's pretty much in line with my own thoughts.

Is a bank ever going to call on Rangers to sell ibrox to repay its loans? We have a loan of around �£20m and a facility for another �£15m. the bank are unlikely to lend us more given we have have not shown any aptitude for making profits over a long period of time, and will be unwilling to increase their exposure in the current environment.

Not fishing at you, mate. I meant it. Just highlighting the fact that I knew I was being provocative to Calscot.

just because they were working efficiently doesn't mean they were working profitably. I believe BSC were receiving subsidies, for example. It was their decison to close Ravenscraig, but let's blame the Tories anyway. I'd be interested in the proof that London is subsidised by the rest of the country. Yes, money flows into it, but that's not subsidies. It's just where a lot of our nation's cash is generated. As for the oil indursty, the likes of Aberdeen has done well from it. Money tens to stay with the people whoo own the companies that make the money. the location of where that monet is earned is largely irrlevant unless you are talking about the knock-on effect, like Aberdeen. Scotland isn't shit. It's you that has tried to portray it as such under Thatcher. That's not the Scotland I recognise at the end of her time in power. It was booming with lots of great business deals going on. I believe it's gone downhill a bit since then, and we've only ourselves to blame for that, but it's still OK. Scotland is currently subsidied by the rest of the UK. Have the confidence to accept it, and don't look on it as being anti-Scottish. We're an integral parrt of the UK and will continue to be so Also just because people have a different view from you doesn't mean that they have to be swallowing a party line. Debaters and free thinkers are what made this country great.

I don't believe that there has been scaremongering. We were very close to having major problems and if we hadn't won the league, I'd imagine that Bougerra, Mendes and Davis (and more) would no longer be here I don't get why he comes to his conclusion in the second paragraph. I believe that he is correct when he said we were at the peak of our borrowing facility (if not over it) prior to the season ticket cash being received. if that was the case then that totally justifies the cost cutting and debt reduction. We probably made a loss in excess of �£10m last season, and although we are getting in cash for transfers and the CL and reducing our cost base, we need to take stes now to ensure we don't have serious problems (ie selling half our first team) if we don't quqalify for the CL next season. Hearts have their finance provided by their owner, as Craig has pointed out. They have little chance of repaying it, hence the rumours that Gorgie Road is going to be sold. If Romanov walks tomorrow and demands repyment, Hearts will likely fold. Killie have severe financial problems. They are going into this season with a first team squad with ten less players than last year. they are no a good example of how other clubs survive. I'm not sure what the point of including the Hamilton example is. Agreed. There will be other benefits and advantages from reducing the debt, including making us more sellable, but I believe that the club have now realised that they have to reduce the debt to ensure the continued competitiveness of the club. Burnside showed interest for one day just before an election, and that is it. there may be some truth to the other rumour. I've yet to see any rumours of due diligence taking place coming from credible sources. I really can't imagine that due diligence will reveal anything that would be a deal breaker. A review of the accounts would reveal most of what is required. Will due diligence reveal income streams or lack of them that aren't already know.? I don't think so. Agreed, but I don't see us being in a position whereby we can break-even without CL football any time soon. Not sure what he bases this on. Agreed.

So these Edinburgh based Scots were going to watcha club that plays songs about the famine over their tannoys, and when they are told "why don’t you go home, famine is over" they believe it is racist AND sectarian? Racist against who? These Edinburgh based Scots who are going to sing about the famine? In what way is it racist? Sectarian? A joke, as there is no mention of anything religious. The Operations manager and MD seem to emphasise that they are Celtic fans, but don't seem to worry about anyone's religion or nationality. Seems like the football team is the relevant matter but they are are going to try and use bigitory as an excuse to have a go at what they clearly seem to accept is just a football issue. I'm sure there's a moral in there somewhere....... As for the UVF issue, if they were referring to the terrorist organisation then fair enough, but if they were referring to the brave man who fought during WW1, then what is the problem? Perhaps the people on the bus are mind readers and can tell what they were meaning?

What about Faslane and Ravenscraig? Are you suggesting that they get subsidised? A report was buried? So what? Reports get buried all of the time. You seem to be suggesting that Scotland should solely benefit from North Sea Oil. Talk about a selfish attitude. Scotland is subsidised by the rest of the UK....and thankfully they were there to bail out our banks recently. Lots of different parts of the country had problems with some of her policies but the country as a whole emerged stronger at the end of her time, and it's small-minded and selfish to take a parochial view and say that she should have ensured that bits of unsuccessful Scottish industry should be protected at a cost to the rest. :fish:

3-1 Rangers Miller, Bougherra, Mendes.

I haven't owned a Rangers strip for years, but think that you could get away with wearing that to places other than the footie. Don't know if I'll be able to wait until Chrimbo....

Note to Santa. I want!!!

I'm not sure how she treated our country that badly. The poll tax? I was better off with that. It was hardly the worst crime in the world. I would say that Gordon Brown's changes to the banking regulations in 1997 have had more of an impact than what Maggie did.

As the song says "So fuck yer Harry, yer lou macari,...."