Comment on Does Money Indeed Ruin Football? by Homunculus.

    I see that the goalkeeper banned from playing for Scotland for life has now decided not to play for Scotland any more.



    A decade later.

    Homunculus Also Commented

    Does Money Indeed Ruin Football?
    If stopping someone from going to watch football is not a punishment then why is it used as a punishment.


    Does Money Indeed Ruin Football?
    paddy malarkey 10th March 2019 at 20:48


    You really should read follow follow occasionally, they really don't do irony.

    The number of things they deem fantastic when their own players and support do it but consider it appalling behaviour when others do it is quite extraordinary. 

    Does Money Indeed Ruin Football?
    Allyjambo 9th March 2019 at 13:24


    I take it he has given up, in spite of the fact they are only 7 points behind (albeit Celtic have a game in hand … but it is Aberdeen). With two games to play against the leaders (a potential 6 point turnaround) and plenty of other games to play.

    Know Surrender. 

    Recent Comments by Homunculus

    Celtic’s Questions to Answer
    ulyanova 15th November 2019 at 22:33

    I wonder if there was a theory that 'purdah' rules during an an election would preclude a response from HMRC?


    Nothing to do with purdah, HMRC would not normally comment on individual taxpayers positions as it would be a breach in confidentiality. They can only do that in specific circumstances, for example at Court during a fraud trial, it would be insane if they could not do that.

    Purdah is more to do with promoting the views and policies of a particular party, and in doing so potentially affecting the election. 

    They have been careful in what they said by not actually commenting in any meaningful way and have simply said the story first released in the Times is not true.

    The reality is boringly simple. They have withdrawn their claim against the creditors pot insofar as it relates to penalties, as it is simply not cost effective to argue the point. If they did and BDO fought them the money for that fight would come straight from the creditors pot and would be even more money lost to themselves and the other creditors.

    All they have said is that their figures were correct in the first place, they just aren't chasing some of that money now. 

    In Whose Interests
    Morelos is a good goalscorer and will be sold for a decent fee. Possibly even enough to balance the books this year, depending on how much the club have to pay out over and above the £10m shortfall.

    He will be sold when the first respectable offer is made.

    The question is, who is going to replace him. If the answer is Defoe that really is a short term solution.

    In Whose Interests
    It's interesting the the impecunious one struggled so badly when he was instructed to make an offer to buy shares. Practically impossible to move money apparently.

    However when it is required to sign off on the audited accounts he can glibly offer up £5m if required, presumably with the permission of the trustees.

    One is forced to wonder how the trustees see this as a good investment and use of the funds they control.

    In Whose Interests
    A common sense look at the Rangers accounts 2019 and what they really mean.


    Or possibly not.

    In Whose Interests
    StevieBC 2nd November 2019 at 10:08

    If there are no credit facilities and it is a cash only business then I would imagine its pretty much risk free to Barclays.



    The RIFC Group maintains cash to fund the daily cash requirements of its business. The Group does not have access to any further banking facilities.

    As at 30 June 2019, there are interest-free, unsecured loans with investors amounting to £10.3 million, other commercial loans of £3.0m, whilst the Group also has finance lease agreements totalling £1.2 million.

    As at 30 June 2019, the Group held £1.0m within cash and bank balances.