rbr 1,247 Posted December 19, 2012 Author Share Posted December 19, 2012 Don't think they were part of the original issue, it was the issue of these that meant that Fritzel had to get a dispensation from making a compulsory offer for the balance of the shareholding as he had breached the 30% limit iirc. Dont think so , these were the ones that Wibble o,neill and eddie jordan bought or were given 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
forlanssister 3,050 Posted December 19, 2012 Share Posted December 19, 2012 Dont think so , these were the ones that Wibble o,neill and eddie jordan bought or were given Were these not the Convertible Preferred Ordinary Shares as opposed to the Convertible Cumulative Preference Shares ? The former were issued in 2001 and seem to have been held by a select group. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bossy 0 Posted December 19, 2012 Share Posted December 19, 2012 Far be for me to throw cold water on a perfectly good rant ...... but ....... 1. Accountancy Standards are not set by auditors 2. Net bank debt does not equal net debt. 3. If, as the author proclaims, all the information is hidden, how is it that he is able to give the page reference to where the information is fully disclosed? 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RANGERRAB 3,293 Posted December 19, 2012 Share Posted December 19, 2012 Just wait til the bills start coming in for their cheapskate stadium. It was never built to last. It's nearly 20 years old now. That's its lifespan. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
der Berliner 3,282 Posted December 20, 2012 Share Posted December 20, 2012 Their recent European record is actually outstanding. ... That's what I would call :fish: . They are most likely the only SPL team that will survive the first year of our absence from the top flight unscathed ... because of one season in the CL. It might have been different had e.g. Barca actually did to them what you want us to do with our opponents week in and week out: put obvious superiority into goals. Alas, football does not work like that and next season can go very wrong for them too. And on a sidenote ... they are currently hardly dominating the SPL either. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ergatrude 0 Posted December 20, 2012 Share Posted December 20, 2012 With their current attendances they would struggle to pay their massive wage bill this season without the champions league monies they are due. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bluedell 5,354 Posted December 20, 2012 Share Posted December 20, 2012 Far be for me to throw cold water on a perfectly good rant ...... but ....... 1. Accountancy Standards are not set by auditors 2. Net bank debt does not equal net debt. 3. If, as the author proclaims, all the information is hidden, how is it that he is able to give the page reference to where the information is fully disclosed? Yeah, that's pretty much where I'd come from. It's been well known since they started using the term bank debt that they were doing so to exclude their preference shares which, from memory, aren't redeemable any time soon. I'm sure I've written about it a couple of times over the years. Yes Celtic pay out dividends to preference shareholders but then again it seems like our share issue may be working in exactly the same way. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
der Berliner 3,282 Posted December 20, 2012 Share Posted December 20, 2012 With their current attendances they would struggle to pay their massive wage bill this season without the champions league monies they are due. They had 30odd first teamers these last few years without much income. Their profits went down from 8m (or the ike) to 180k in 2011 and even further this year. CL saves their blushes big time and I for one assume that they won't spread this success/money on their fellow SPL voters and malcontents. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rbr 1,247 Posted December 20, 2012 Author Share Posted December 20, 2012 Far be for me to throw cold water on a perfectly good rant ...... but ....... 1. Accountancy Standards are not set by auditors 2. Net bank debt does not equal net debt. 3. If, as the author proclaims, all the information is hidden, how is it that he is able to give the page reference to where the information is fully disclosed? It wasnt that it was hidden , more that it wasnt reported , and I also agree with Boss that we will be going down the same route re dividends , however as far as I am aware we dont have preference shares that guarentee their value and pay 6% in perpetuity 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bluedell 5,354 Posted December 20, 2012 Share Posted December 20, 2012 (edited) It wasnt that it was hidden , more that it wasnt reported , and I also agree with Boss that we will be going down the same route re dividends , however as far as I am aware we dont have preference shares that guarentee their value and pay 6% in perpetuity We don't but they could be set up that way given the fact that RIFC will charge interest to RFC which can then be paid as dividends. Our investors have the advantage that RFC doesn't need distributable reserves and to pay the interest to RIFC and I'd reckon that Green will ensure that RIFC is fairly clean and profitable. Edited December 20, 2012 by Bluedell 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.