union 0 Posted June 5, 2017 Share Posted June 5, 2017 His exact words were "we have not £1 of debt on the balance sheet". 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
trublusince1982 243 Posted June 5, 2017 Share Posted June 5, 2017 He didn't say 3rd party, but he did say that if celtic win 10 in a row 4 of them won't count,yes he really did say that. I agree wholeheartedly with him. If they did manage to win ten in a row then four are tainted and it's a nothing statement 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
colinstein 294 Posted June 5, 2017 Share Posted June 5, 2017 I agree wholeheartedly with him. If they did manage to win ten in a row then four are tainted and it's a nothing statement winning a league when there's no opposition does seem a bit dodgy. In running events it's called a walkover 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
compo 6,138 Posted June 5, 2017 Share Posted June 5, 2017 Stop this its up to us to provide opposition and put a stop to their winning ways 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
chilledbear 16 Posted June 5, 2017 Author Share Posted June 5, 2017 Any ideas on the DOF? 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
craig 5,195 Posted June 5, 2017 Share Posted June 5, 2017 His exact words were "we have not £1 of debt on the balance sheet". Were you in attendance or have a recording of those "exact words" ? Regardless of the technicality of it - and yes there IS debt on the balance sheet - if all of the those holding the debt (King and T3B) have made firm commitments to convert upon a share issue then you can see why he would say such a thing. However, technically, there would still, until and unless there was an issue with conversion, there is debt on the books. However, forlanssister, who is in attendance at the NARSA event and, I believe, was in attendance when King made his comments, recalls the term used as being "no third party debt" - hence the reason I am curious as to your source - because we all know FS's diligence in such matters so it would surprise me if he recalled that snippet incorrectly. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gaffer 1,665 Posted June 6, 2017 Share Posted June 6, 2017 I think we all know the financial position within the club anyway. We know we have loans, but we also have been told that these loans will be exchanged for equity at the next available opportunity. In that regard there is no 'real' debt. I'd like to see the board press ahead with the necessary resolutions to allow for that debt for equity swap. I haven't heard anything more about that. Anyone else? 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
forlanssister 3,050 Posted June 6, 2017 Share Posted June 6, 2017 He didn't say 3rd party, but he did say that if celtic win 10 in a row 4 of them won't count,yes he really did say that. He used the phrases "third party" and "external" when referring to debt several times over both morning and evening speeches. He did claim not a £1 of debt on the balance sheet, a take on things I don't share as the loans are real an in existence no matter how 'soft' they may be. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bluedell 5,329 Posted June 6, 2017 Share Posted June 6, 2017 I think we all know the financial position within the club anyway. We know we have loans, but we also have been told that these loans will be exchanged for equity at the next available opportunity. In that regard there is no 'real' debt. That's the situation at the moment but if there's a fall out or one of the director's circumstances change then it's always possible that they look for the loans to be repaid. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Uilleam 5,429 Posted June 6, 2017 Share Posted June 6, 2017 That's the situation at the moment but if there's a fall out or one of the director's circumstances change then it's always possible that they look for the loans to be repaid. Unless of course, the rights of redemption, like Bain's contract, are invalid, and unenforceable at law. (Mr Forlanssister's observations on the other thread refer.) 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.