The Rangers FC AGM - What Would You Ask?

[spanner 0]

1. Semantic hyperbole to cover yourself, or given your brother is "high up" in Lloyds Asset Finance are you saying he doesnt really know Rangers accounts that well ? If you are saying he doesnt it kind of lessens the impact of some of your earlier posts, no ?

 

2. So SDM will be laughing at your brother given he works for Lloyds and, even though in asset finance, is technically a banker ?

 

Explain why he would be laughing at accountants though ? The signing off of his accounts has not as yet happened for the year ended January 31, 2009 (and, in fact, he has extended the fiscal year) so why then would he be laughing at said accountants ? I suspect he is doing anything BUT laughing at the fact he has had to extend the Murray Group fiscal year to allow himself more time to not have a qualified audit report due to his group being considered a going concern problem.

 

Also, it is unlikely that the accountants were the ones who would have signed off on the astronomical debts that his group companies accumulated. Those things would have been done by the bankers.

 

Can you explain why a banking institution being provided withtaxpayer money would be more in need of SDM than he would them ? Not sure I understand that. SDM and his empire is struggling, of that there can be little doubt. If Lloyds pull the plug on his businesses then who will go bankrupt ? SDM's companies, right ? Do you think that Lloyds will go bankrupt if they let the MIH group go to the wall ? I doubt it. They are not THAT reliant on one individual.

 

Still waiting on where you got your figure of 470 million for the MIH debt though. Where did you get that figure from ?

 

OK that clears everything up, it is unlikely accountants signed of the accounts, those dastardly banking chaps are the pits, and SDM will still be sitting with his personal fortune intact, even I can see he spent loads of the banks moolaha and I walk dugs, and very little of his own companys, debt driven I believe it is called on a ratio of about 86% -14%, yes I do believe the bank would rather SDM doesn't go tits up, lots of heads could roll notwithstanding the nearly �£1 billion alleged total exposure, still what's a billion between friends.

 

http://www.gersnetonline.co.uk/vb/showpost.php?p=178122&postcount=40

 

ETA Do you still insist that the MIH debt, which is slightly bigger than your average Provi cheque, when and if the shit hits the fan, will have no consequences for Rangers.

Edited November 18, 2009 by spanner

[craig 5,195]

OK that clears everything up, it is unlikely accountants signed of the accounts, those dastardly banking chaps are the pits, and SDM will still be sitting with his personal fortune intact, even I can see he spent loads of the banks moolaha and I walk dugs, and very little of his own companys, debt driven I believe it is called on a ratio of about 86% -14%, yes I do believe the bank would rather SDM doesn't go tits up, lots of heads could roll notwithstanding the nearly �£1 billion alleged total exposure, still what's a billion between friends.

 

http://www.gersnetonline.co.uk/vb/showpost.php?p=178122&postcount=40

 

ETA Do you still insist that the MIH debt, which is slightly bigger than your average Provi cheque, when and if the shit hits the fan, will have no consequences for Rangers.

 

Any chance you can stay on track ? Or at least try to keep up ?

 

1. Where did your 470 million figure come from ? Still no response, wonder why ? Cause you were wrong ?

2. No, you are incorrect - it is not "unlikely" that the accountants didnt sign off on the accounts. It is FACT. MIH changed their year end and if you think that was for any other reason than SDM having major concerns over MIH remaining as a going concern then you are likely to be wrong.

3. Was it not you that said the bank (and accountants) are the king of fuck-ups ? So I guess you also believe that the "dastardly banking chaps are the pits" ?

4. Tell me where, at ANY point of this conversation, have I indulged in talking about SDM's personal wealth ? NOWHERE. As I said, try to stay on track - either that or make your point as opposed to just letting your fingers do your talking without engaging your brain. If you want to discuss SDM spending the bank's cash and not his own, no problem - we can do that - but it hasnt been part of the discussion thus far and isnt relevant to the topic at hand.

5. Tell me where your 86:14 ratio of debt is coming from ? And, for clarity, is it debt:equity or debt to something else ? Seeing as you havent confirmed where you got your 470 mill debt figure from I am loath to discuss figures when I can't even be sure that you have the correct figures in the first place.

6. Again, tell me where I said the bank wanted SDM to go tits up ? Didnt happen. You said the bank need SDM more than he needs them which is very different to the bank wanting him to go tits up. Again, stay on track. Regardless, I would actually agree that the bank dont want him to go tits up as they would prefer he could manage his way out of the mess. But then..... that was hardly the point you tried to make in your previous post was it ? Yes, heads could roll but at the end of the day the bank will do what it has to do in the best interests of its shareholders (which includes the taxpayer), or at least it should - and if that means letting SDM go tits up then so be it. For a recent similar comparison take a look at Bear Stearns in the USA. It's financiers let it go tits up because it was felt it couldnt be helped and heads DID roll.

 

Also mildly amusing is the manner in which you "filed" BlueDell's FACTS as "supposition" yet you have yet to substantiate ONE thing of your own with fact. Care to try that at all ?

 

ETA : Before we determine my stance on the MIH debt how about we come to a landing point on what that is can we ? MIH has debt of 15 million as at Jan 31, 2007 - would you agree ? It also had a further 293 million in parental guarantees (which, as I said before, is NOT their debt but could become so if the group company they guaranteed the debt for default on the payments of said debt).

 

If you suggest that the debt is the 643 you mentioned before (or even this mysterious 470 you mentioned) then there really is no point in taking this further because, as has been pointed out ad nauseum, this is the debt of other group companies, not MIH - and those other group companies do not own Rangers.

Edited November 18, 2009 by craig

[spanner 0]

I do believe you are prevaricating, it is clear what is and has happened, my view of suits is also clear including the ones in accountant apparel, who signed of the previous accounts.

Thunderer article.

"The looming problem, however, was that this performance had been built on a massive pile of debt. By the beginning of 2008, MIH’s net debt was a staggering Ã?£759.3 million, massively up from Ã?£468.3 million two years previously." So nothing mysterious about the debt, apparently that is your remit.

 

The point of the discussion is that you deny the obvious, and I a dug walker steer you back on track.

If MIH house of cards falls, fire sale time at your local friendly liquidator, after of course he has robbed his non justifiable fees first. You know I have been thinking, you should really ask for your money back from the correspondence course.

 

ETA The suits the robbin fuks should be getting jail time 5 years at least, not getting fat bonuses at the taxpayers expense.

Edited November 19, 2009 by spanner

[craig 5,195]

I do believe you are prevaricating, it is clear what is and has happened, my view of suits is also clear including the ones in accountant apparel, who signed of the previous accounts.

Thunderer article.

"The looming problem, however, was that this performance had been built on a massive pile of debt. By the beginning of 2008, MIHâ��s net debt was a staggering �£759.3 million, massively up from �£468.3 million two years previously." So nothing mysterious about the debt, apparently that is your remit.

 

The point of the discussion is that you deny the obvious, and I a dug walker steer you back on track.

If MIH house of cards falls, fire sale time at your local friendly liquidator, after of course he has robbed his non justifiable fees first. You know I have been thinking, you should really ask for your money back from the correspondence course.

 

ETA The suits the robbin fuks should be getting jail time 5 years at least, not getting fat bonuses at the taxpayers expense.

 

You are so full of shit though. Are you actually reading ANYTHING that anyone is posting ?

 

Try to let this sink into your head for a moment - or at the very least take a look at my previous posts. That statement about the debt is not completely correct. The debt numbers you state is NOT MIH debt - take a look at the accounts of MIH and show me where that is MIH debt, you cant. It is GROUP debt and the parent company (MIH) is only on the hook for the share capital that it holds in said companies know what that means spanner ? It means that if one of those group companies is threatened with administration then MIH lose...... their shares and not a penny more, even if that group company has, oh I dont know, say 700 million in debt).

 

Oh indeed there is something mysterious about the debt. Again, the prevarication and circumvention tems from you. The first time you mentioned the 470 million you stated that this was MIH ONLY debt, not the GROUP debt. FFS, you cant even get your OWN story straight. Make up your mind FFS.

 

Lets put it this way, if that 760 million of debt was ALL Rangers debt and none of it related to any other MIH company how much of it does MIH have to pay back ? NOTHING. The only way they have to pay ANY of it back is if they have a parental guarantee in place. Again, know why ? Because the debt would be Rangers debt and, unless that parental guarantee is in place, MIH would/could let Rangers go under and the ONLY thing they need to do is write off their investment.

 

See as a qualified accountant (not a correspondence course one, or a dug-walker who thinks he is one) it is my job to understand these things so when the accountants signed off on the previous accounts (2008 accounts) the reality is at the time of signing off they believed that MIH was a going concern and they had no material (accountant speak, sorry about that) problems with the numbers. This means they felt the company would be in business for the next 12 months.... and were they in business ? Yes. So the accountants were probably right to sign them off. Have any been signed off since the shit hit the fan ? No, and rightly so.

 

Sadly you are showing yourself up to not only be a novice but also a perpetrator of bullshit.

 

Unless and until you can actually make a reasoned and valid counter-argument this is going nowhere. Every time I give you hard facts you make a very feeble attempt to shoot them down but, in so doing, make yourself look ever more foolish. Which has been the theme of your involvement in this thread. BD stated facts, you shot them down as supposition. I have given you facts, again from a professional perspective being as my job is all about analysing accounts (BD, too, is an accountant) - so mildly amusing that you have two professionals telling you facts yet for some reason you, the self-professed dug walker, know more about them than we do.

 

To top that off you have not provided ONE shred of evidence for anything you have said and the piece de la resistance is that you now provide, as evidence, an article from someone named "thunderer" - now I wont shout down "thunderer" as his/her numbers look right (though technically the debt is not MIH's but it group companies - but that is semantics for this purpose) but you use their comment as fact but refuse BD's comments as fact when they came from the RFC chairman, accounts, etc etc.

 

You really should go and lie down in a dark corner of a room.

 

I suspect you are a timposter but if not my apologies. But if you want to continur this debate might I suggest you either at least substantiate what you are saying with logic or simply take it to PM. I am sure that a few on here are as tired of reading your drivel as I am.

 

I have lost the energy and patience to educate you or make you understand the basics of a set of accounts.

 

Regarding the "robbing fucks" I wouldn't disagree - but perhaps some of those who were pushing them to create ever increasing shareholder returns (institutional investors for the most part) are also culpable.

[spanner 0]

Let's put this to bed once and for all, if MIH go under it has reverberations throughout Murrays wholly owned empire, which in case you hadn't noticed includes RFC, now if that is to complicated for you to understand you should definitely ask for your money back, the buck stops with MIH, or maybe you think they are ornamental rather than instrumental. As for your timposter shit let me remove the T and say you have all the hallmarks of an imposter, now what part of if MIH go tits up the shit hits the fan don't you get, or is it just all of it. Got soaked taking the dugs oot, but hopefully my kind of accountant, Turf accountant that is, will make it all worth while, you have a good day now Craig, don't let the figures hypnotise you.

 

 

PS Thunderer is the Times .

Edited November 19, 2009 by spanner

[Super_Ally 0]

Spanner, I don't understand why you, as a self confessed layman, are so sure your opinions are more valid than those of 3 experts in finance?

[spanner 0]

Spanner, I don't understand why you, as a self confessed layman, are so sure your opinions are more valid than those of 3 experts in finance?

 

Experts ? we have seen the results that the experts in finance have brought to Rangers, you really couldn't make it up. If you want to join the experts and subscribe to the theory that any bad karma befalling SDM amd MIH is of no consequence to Rangers, be my guest but I wont be joining you.

[Super_Ally 0]

we have seen the results that the experts in finance have brought to Rangers, you really couldn't make it up.

 

I'm not sure you realise who I was referring to?

[spanner 0]

I'm not sure you realise who I was referring to?

 

I am well aware of who you were referring to, luckily they don't work for RFC.

[Super_Ally 0]

Your previous post makes little sense in that case then. And also they seem to be running rings around you with the financial debate yet you can't or wont see it. Arrogance or ignorance?