The Reqs the facts (from RM)

[aweebluesoandso 290]

Spivs must be worried, not like Toxic Jack to spin otherwise like though eh.

[TheWeissMan 0]

Spivs must be worried, not like Toxic Jack to spin otherwise like though eh.

 

Im not Toxic Jack. Im 100% against Toxic Jack and want him out of our Club.

[Bluedell 5,329]

1. And neither would Paul Murray know to be fair, however not withstanding that, debts on player assets are not included when calculating Net Debt, something which i know you are aware of Bluedell.

I don't see why PM would not know the debt as he would be given management accounts etc. The point on the players is that cash would probably have flowed out the business to pay for a proportion of them, increasing the debt.

 

2. I didnt say it was a few weeks from the year end, i said it was a few weeks after they were published. Not that it makes much of a difference to be fair though.

 

There was a significant amount of trading during the 12 week period and you appeared to be trying to imply that the financial position would be practically unchanged, something that is clearly not the case.

 

3. If Paul Murray was talking about "debt" then when he quoted £14m as the end figure, what was he quoting there ? Was he leaving out all player debts, HMRC debts, Leases, Finance, Ticketus, 20% of Lloyds loan ?

 

I don't know, and as you are asking the question, you appear not to either, which implies that you don't know whether he was accurate or not...so much for only quoting facts.

 

4. As stated above, these would not greatly impact Net Debt figures and certainly not to the tune of £19m.

 

Player signed for a reported total of over £9m plus signing on fees etc would not have an impact on the net debt figure? If they were all paid upfront then it would have an impact of £9m on the net debt. Plus outgoings in excess of £3m a month? While I would expect that the net debt would not change by as much as £19m, it could have changed fairly significantly (in excess of £10M?) and as neither of us know what figure PM was referring to, it makes any attempted analysis meaningless.

[crucible 0]

So you're not concerned at Easdale's a criminal?

 

His conviction is spent.

[andy steel 0]

I note you're a site writer. I don't know if you have had any articles from here posted on RM, but we certainly welcome GersNet articles on the site. We like to have all sides debated.

 

I hope you speak for yourself and not GersNet when you posted this.

 

1- Hopefully not, I would rather not write anything than have it on RM.

 

2- Plainly I don't speak for Gersnet, even before Frankie's reply. But the quickest, most surefire way to get rid of the posters on this board is to turn it into a sub forum of Rangersmedia.

[TheWeissMan 0]

I don't see why PM would not know the debt as he would be given management accounts etc. The point on the players is that cash would probably have flowed out the business to pay for a proportion of them, increasing the debt.

 

 

 

There was a significant amount of trading during the 12 week period and you appeared to be trying to imply that the financial position would be practically unchanged, something that is clearly not the case.

 

 

 

I don't know, and as you are asking the question, you appear not to either, which implies that you don't know whether he was accurate or not...so much for only quoting facts.

 

 

 

Player signed for a reported total of over £9m plus signing on fees etc would not have an impact on the net debt figure? If they were all paid upfront then it would have an impact of £9m on the net debt. Plus outgoings in excess of £3m a month? While I would expect that the net debt would not change by as much as £19m, it could have changed fairly significantly (in excess of £10M?) and as neither of us know what figure PM was referring to, it makes any attempted analysis meaningless.

 

1. Firstly, Paul stated that he was referring to matters which were "public record" The only "public record" when he joined was the previous years accounts. However, lets take a little walk. Its possible Paul would have had seen management accounts to month end August which would have been 2 trading months in which, more season ticket revenue would have came in, more match-day revenue would have came in, there would have been 70,000 x Champions League tickets sold for the 2 home ties as well as Hospitality and TV revenue. And against that as you have stated, there would have been the monthly running costs and any "up-front" player acquisitions. £3m at worst. Not £19m. And not "public record."

 

2. I stated what was on "public record" recorded as fact. I also know for a fact, though cannot prove it, that our Net Debt, which is certainly what he is talking about when he bands the £14m figure around, did not increase by £19m in the space of 2 operating months.

 

3. If you read the intro again, i clearly state the debt figure at 2011 is not fact and i state how i arrive at it. It is made crystal clear.

 

4. We did not pay all the transfers up front though. That can clearly be traced through the £7m increase in Creditors from June 30th 2007 to June 20th 2008 as well as being a known practice in the game. I think i do know what figures he was referring to, though not for FACT hence i didnt include it. The £35m is all debt, no cash, to make it sound HUGE and the £14m is Lloyds only but using a cash guesstimate to reduce it further.

 

If anyone was comparing apples and oranges, it was the person who made the claim in the first place.

 

PS - For the record, as at the time he left, HMRC had also submitted the Big Tax Case assessment which from a legal standpoint was considered a £24m debt.

[crucible 0]

1. Firstly, Paul stated that he was referring to matters which were "public record" The only "public record" when he joined was the previous years accounts. However, lets take a little walk. Its possible Paul would have had seen management accounts to month end August which would have been 2 trading months in which, more season ticket revenue would have came in, more match-day revenue would have came in, there would have been 70,000 x Champions League tickets sold for the 2 home ties as well as Hospitality and TV revenue. And against that as you have stated, there would have been the monthly running costs and any "up-front" player acquisitions. £3m at worst. Not £19m. And not "public record."

 

2. I stated what was on "public record" recorded as fact. I also know for a fact, though cannot prove it, that our Net Debt, which is certainly what he is talking about when he bands the £14m figure around, did not increase by £19m in the space of 2 operating months.

 

3. If you read the intro again, i clearly state the debt figure at 2011 is not fact and i state how i arrive at it. It is made crystal clear.

 

4. We did not pay all the transfers up front though. That can clearly be traced through the £7m increase in Creditors from June 30th 2007 to June 20th 2008 as well as being a known practice in the game. I think i do know what figures he was referring to, though not for FACT hence i didnt include it. The £35m is all debt, no cash, to make it sound HUGE and the £14m is Lloyds only but using a cash guesstimate to reduce it further.

 

If anyone was comparing apples and oranges, it was the person who made the claim in the first place.

 

PS - For the record, as at the time he left, HMRC had also submitted the Big Tax Case assessment which from a legal standpoint was considered a £24m debt.

 

Can you so to what extent if any you consider Donald Muir was responsible for debt reduction, as I recall WS said the bank was running the club.

 

http://is.gd/zbkwUR

[the gunslinger 3,366]

Boss posted a succinct appraisal, PM never reduced any debt the bank and their place man did.

 

Interesting because boss used to insist the bank werent running the club. Rm is littered with threads saying it.

 

He seems an unreliable witness on that basis.

 

Oh and again I will point out the 4 years pm was on the rangers board were spectacularly succesful both on and off the pitch

[crucible 0]

Interesting because boss used to insist the bank werent running the club. Rm is littered with threads saying it.

 

He seems an unreliable witness on that basis.

 

Oh and again I will point out the 4 years pm was on the rangers board were spectacularly succesful both on and off the pitch

 

You tend to say a lot about Boss and his figures, you never produce your oft threatened rebuttals.

[Bluedell 5,329]

PS - For the record, as at the time he left, HMRC had also submitted the Big Tax Case assessment which from a legal standpoint was considered a £24m debt.

 

PS for the record, that wouldn't affect net debt.