rbr 1,247 Posted February 13, 2017 Share Posted February 13, 2017 so are liverpool and man u in trouble? their boards did exactly the same thing Your changing terms its not a personal investment its a facet of the project, indeed a key component. # If this is the level of complaint they must be doing a decent job.The term investment includes all resources put towards the project. same as when fuel is charged back as an expense, the same principle applys. The cost of the fuel didnt go to the project but it facilitated the project so is included Man utd s board didnt do anything of the sort, they bought the club basically with the clubs own money,ie they bought the Majority share then swapped that for Debt , totally different to what happened with us 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
trublusince1982 243 Posted February 13, 2017 Share Posted February 13, 2017 Man utd s board didnt do anything of the sort, they bought the club basically with the clubs own money,ie they bought the Majority share then swapped that for Debt , totally different to what happened with us fair enough maybe a poor example so you don't agree the term investment is linked to the project? And costs associated with a project cannot be tallied or referred to as investment even though thats the definition of investment? 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frankie 8,150 Posted February 13, 2017 Share Posted February 13, 2017 Semantics aside, fans wouldn't expect the initial payment costs to be included in that £30m estimate so to do so is the kind of doublespeak we need to avoid. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Uilleam 5,429 Posted February 13, 2017 Share Posted February 13, 2017 You are reinventing the financial wheel here , he can't reasonably argue anything , what he spent to buy shares is his and only his business , whether that was £1 or £100 million , it isn't investment. He's using the old SDM smoke and mirrors trick and some are buying into it , it's bullshit . Buying shares is an investment by you, me, or DK, no matter how you look at it. Without buying the shares, he would not have control of the Club. (Now, of course, he has to come up with a strategy to get significant amounts of new money into the Club; and that is tricky. ) 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bluedell 5,329 Posted February 13, 2017 Share Posted February 13, 2017 so are liverpool and man u in trouble? their boards did exactly the same thing When did they do that? Your changing terms its not a personal investment its a facet of the project, indeed a key component. # It is a personal investment. Who benefits from the purchase of the shares? As I said earlier, if they spend the remaining £12 million on shares from 3rd parties, will everyone be satisfied with that? If this is the level of complaint they must be doing a decent job.The term investment includes all resources put towards the project. Not if you're a chairman of a PLC, it's not. You should be referring to the company> if he wanted to refer to King & Co's personal expenditure then he should be doing that personally. If he wants to do it on the club website, he's doing it as Chairman of the PLC and the figures he refers to should only be in respect of the company. I'll repeat that the company got no benefit from the money he and his fellow investors spent buying shares from third parties and it's really nothing to do with the club per se. same as when fuel is charged back as an expense, the same principle applys. The cost of the fuel didnt go to the project but it facilitated the project so is includedIf fuel is charged by an employee in the performance of their job? Yes, that would be the cost. However fuel for the employee to get to their usual place of work would not be included and it wouldn't be chargeable. It's a personal expense. (not sure if that's what you were meaning in your example). 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Uilleam 5,429 Posted February 13, 2017 Share Posted February 13, 2017 Semantics aside, fans wouldn't expect the initial payment costs to be included in that £30m estimate so to do so is the kind of doublespeak we need to avoid. It is semantics, but, frankly, without buying shares from x, y, and z, (an investment of money) he would not have control of the Club. I am comfortable with him saying that the acquisition represents part of his overall, personal, investment into the Club. After all, you can't build a house without buying the land (forget pedantry re: leasing). 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rbr 1,247 Posted February 13, 2017 Share Posted February 13, 2017 It is semantics, but, frankly, without buying shares from x, y, and z, (an investment of money) he would not have control of the Club. I am comfortable with him saying that the acquisition represents part of his overall, personal, investment into the Club.After all, you can't build a house without buying the land (forget pedantry re: leasing). But he never said that , has never said that , it's wrong what your saying and very disingenuous. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
trublusince1982 243 Posted February 13, 2017 Share Posted February 13, 2017 Semantics aside, fans wouldn't expect the initial payment costs to be included in that £30m estimate so to do so is the kind of doublespeak we need to avoid. people should be educated then. No personal investment was taken with the sole goal of making a return. The purchase of the club was part of a five year plan. That is a project. no two ways about it. Maybe the board should dumb down their comments to limit the amount of false complaints and misunderstandings. Each week it becomes a little bit more apparent that transparency will never work if those being spoken too dont understand the basic concepts involved. Maybe it would be better to return to the DM way of things and ignore the fans. When investment from the board is mentioned its in regards to the project. The project being the buying and running of Rangers. It would be far more reasonable for those who misunderstand to change their view than expecting each club statement to come with explicit definitions. Its their mistake in not understanding , not just the boards. If you thought he meant £18m given to the club then you where wrong, not the statement. It wasnt misleading either. The reader was lacking in the skills needed to understand. So from now on they will know that investment when mentioned by the club defines the resources expended on the project. Any money the same people still moan the next time, even though they now understand the terminology. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bluedell 5,329 Posted February 13, 2017 Share Posted February 13, 2017 people should be educated then. No personal investment was taken with the sole goal of making a return. The purchase of the club was part of a five year plan. That is a project. no two ways about it. Maybe the board should dumb down their comments to limit the amount of false complaints and misunderstandings. Each week it becomes a little bit more apparent that transparency will never work if those being spoken too dont understand the basic concepts involved. Maybe it would be better to return to the DM way of things and ignore the fans. When investment from the board is mentioned its in regards to the project. The project being the buying and running of Rangers. It would be far more reasonable for those who misunderstand to change their view than expecting each club statement to come with explicit definitions. Its their mistake in not understanding , not just the boards. If you thought he meant £18m given to the club then you where wrong, not the statement. It wasnt misleading either. The reader was lacking in the skills needed to understand. So from now on they will know that investment when mentioned by the club defines the resources expended on the project. Any money the same people still moan the next time, even though they now understand the terminology. As I said above, I have some knowledge as to the way things are done and frequently meet with very large companies to discuss our investments. However I see that they way that they do things is totally wrong and they are lacking in skills and it's everyone should change the way that they do things to the way Dave King does. The city of London is wrong and Dave King is correct 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
trublusince1982 243 Posted February 13, 2017 Share Posted February 13, 2017 (edited) As I said above, I have some knowledge as to the way things are done and frequently meet with very large companies to discuss our investments. However I see that they way that they do things is totally wrong and they are lacking in skills and it's everyone should change the way that they do things to the way Dave King does. The city of London is wrong and Dave King is correct And i have experience running projects and companies and this is how investment is always described. Turn it round then if you think he is purposefully being misleading then why would he do so? £12.9m is still within the promises made. Edited February 13, 2017 by trublusince1982 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.