0
    0

    Comment on We’re Gonny Need Another Baw. by Homunculus.

    Jim Traynor did an interview for Club 1872, which is clearly now not only the only source of new money but also the outlet for the real "statements" where they can say what they want but if there is any come back the club can deny liability.

    Truly mental stuff from Traynor (remember him confirming liquidation meant the club was dead). He always was a nasty piece of work, even more so now. 

     

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=1&v=4IhlZ6aLgTQ

    Homunculus Also Commented

    We’re Gonny Need Another Baw.
    It is a quality bit of deflection, pandering to the support. If you look at the forums just now the main topic seems to be how they are hard done by, how it is not a level playing field, who can they boycott and attack etc.

    Anyway, any sign of the PLC's interim results. 


    We’re Gonny Need Another Baw.
    ernie 18th February 2019 at 11:00

    =================================

    Pitch invasions at any games is just wrong.


    We’re Gonny Need Another Baw.
    Ex Ludo 17th February 2019 at 12:19

    ===================================

    As things stand it's really quite simple.

    They will continue to trade for as long as people are willing to provide them with loans. Whether those loans are repaid with worthless equity is pretty much irrelevant.

    The business has traded at a loss in every year of it's existence and continues to do so. Loans are an essential part of the "business model".

    I suppose it's possible that they might sell a player for 5 times any realistic valuation, the press are certainly trying to help with that. However that is at best unlikely.


    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.

    https://www.ibroxnoise.co.uk/2019/11/rangers-accounts-and-lies-spun-to.html

    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.

     

    LIQUIDITY AND CAPITAL RESOURCES

    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.