Danny 0 Posted December 2, 2011 Share Posted December 2, 2011 The good old Daily Rhebel never miss a chance to make a mountain out of a molehill and twist the knife. By the way what was the Septic score in midweek oh that's right they got beat in Europe AGAIN and we get a negative Rangers story surprise surprise. The same paper who printed the cracked Celtic crest back in the day? The same paper tims call the Daily Ranger? This paper cannot be biased against both. Or maybe it can. Maybe it sees a story and uses it to sell papers. Whoever it targets. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
GovanAllan 0 Posted December 2, 2011 Share Posted December 2, 2011 The same paper who printed the cracked Celtic crest back in the day? The same paper tims call the Daily Ranger? This paper cannot be biased against both. Or maybe it can. Maybe it sees a story and uses it to sell papers. Whoever it targets. All about opinions Danny and you do get less negative Septic stories today but its swings and roundabouts, might have something to do with the workforce at the Rhebel these days. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Danny 0 Posted December 2, 2011 Share Posted December 2, 2011 All about opinions Danny and you do get less negative Septic stories today but its swings and roundabouts, might have something to do with the workforce at the Rhebel these days. I think it literally boils down to our financial troubles and the Villarreal grass (which started the whole sectarian nonsense). We've been an easier target for a while, but back in the day (especially 9iar) there was almost no negative Rangers stories and constant attacks on Celtic. That was before McCann saved them - during a time when they were an easy target and close to collapse. I don't deny there are partisan journalists who do not like Rangers, just like in any walk of life. It's just that Rangers stories are also easier and lazier these days. It seems to me whichever club is in a stronger structural state gets less attacks - just us during 9iar and the John Barnes/Venglos era. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
craig 5,195 Posted December 2, 2011 Share Posted December 2, 2011 your the expert. would out top line not have risen had he injected cash or does that not show in turnover? Nope, the top line wouldnt have risen. Any injection of cash is a balance sheet item - you increase the cash/bank balance and increase either the liability (amount owed to the person injecting the cash) or increase the capital of the Company. It would not show in turnover. An injection of cash is not an operational income. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
der Berliner 3,234 Posted December 2, 2011 Share Posted December 2, 2011 On a sidenote, is there a slight chance that these "results" are "tuned" with respect to the upcoming HMRC case and a worst-case scenario? That is, not being willfully twisted or something, but all is geared so that in case of the worst case scenario, the damage dealt to Rangers and Whyte are minimal? 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrahimHemdani 1 Posted December 2, 2011 Share Posted December 2, 2011 (edited) your the expert. would out top line not have risen had he injected cash or does that not show in turnover? No, only trading income i.e. season tickets, match day sales etc show in turnover. Cash injected would show as a liability because the Club owes it to him. Edited December 2, 2011 by BrahimHemdani typo 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrahimHemdani 1 Posted December 2, 2011 Share Posted December 2, 2011 On a sidenote, is there a slight chance that these "results" are "tuned" with respect to the upcoming HMRC case and a worst-case scenario? That is, not being willfully twisted or something, but all is geared so that in case of the worst case scenario, the damage dealt to Rangers and Whyte are minimal? No chance whatsover, the fallout from unaudited accounts is far too great. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bluedell 5,329 Posted December 2, 2011 Author Share Posted December 2, 2011 On a sidenote, is there a slight chance that these "results" are "tuned" with respect to the upcoming HMRC case and a worst-case scenario? That is, not being willfully twisted or something, but all is geared so that in case of the worst case scenario, the damage dealt to Rangers and Whyte are minimal? There's always a degree of flexibility when it comes to accounting matters and they may well be slightly worse than they could have made it, but I doubt that it would be material. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zappa 0 Posted December 2, 2011 Share Posted December 2, 2011 Seen an interesting point raised by someone regarding the signing off of the accounts potentially being held up by the court cases with the former directors. For example, one or two of the unpaid payments or bonuses that Bain is sueing for may well fall within that accounting year ending June 30th. So, maybe the outcome of that court case has the potential to affect the figures in the accounts by hundreds of thousands?? 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrahimHemdani 1 Posted December 2, 2011 Share Posted December 2, 2011 (edited) Another question for you BH: Why do you think Whyte came along shortly after Ellis (who was close to the RST), bought the club for a quid and put Ellis on the board or directors of the shareholding company? Well I am the right person to answer that one, because as you may be aware I was the Secretary of RST at the time! Ellis was never close to RST. We tried very hard to make contact through official chanels and I spoke to his representative in Guernsey twice, one of these conversations was witnessed by another Board member. In the first conversation, his adviser told me categorically that Ellis had no interest in Rangers as a Club, his only interest was the "opportunity" that the advsier had recommended to him. As is well documented, it is my belief that that interest was in the development opportunity in the south west corner. I do not believe that Ellis had the kind of money required and that belief is strengthened by the fact that Whyte was lending him the money for a share in the takeover. In the second conversation, the adviser told me that Ellis would he happy to sell the Club to the fans in say 5 years when he had made his money. I believe that some other members of the Board of RST may have spoken to to certain journalists who knew Ellis or claimed to know or be speaking to him and one Board member may even have spoken to him directly but to say he was close to RST is a myth. I also had another contact who was close to a personal friend of Ellis (the friend being close enough to be having dinner with him on a weekly basis) and that is where most of the information that I was putting on Gersnet at the time was coming from. In the end it turned out that Ellis didn't have the money to do the deal. There was a story at the time that when his backers found out it was Glasgow Rangers not Queens Park Rangers, they pulled out and I think there is more than a grain of truth in that. So why would Whyte want him on Board? Well perhaps because Whyte is more an asset stripper than a property developer and Ellis seemed to fit the bill. I find Whyte a bit of an illusion. On the one hand, he seems to be a ruthless sharp cookie but on the other he seems to make a lot of very naive mistakes and perhaps Ellis is one of them. Hope this helps. Edited December 2, 2011 by BrahimHemdani 0 Quote Link to post 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.