thplinth

FFS until this pot boiler book came out you never once mentioned landing the planes and killing all the passengers but now you know it as fact. You always do this present things as known when they simply are not. Faith = belief without proof. You every thread on this subject with this bullshit.

Just following the links to the sources on his wiki page... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dave_King_%28businessman%29#cite_note-12 That leads one to: I wonder how these contracts that ultimately made him rich were won, riddled with controversies does not sound too healthy. And this is the guy you have brought in to clean up the club. edit: maybe made some good contacts at Umgeni Water when working in SA for Weir Pumps? Who knows...

hmmmm... been doing a bit of reading on your boy King. It is not just the tax fraud it is also how he made his dough to begin with... Also this caught my eye... And this... IMHO you lot are ing mental backing Mr King. Good luck ya crazy bams.

Would Dave King have succeeded in getting the fans to remove the old board had they known the shares would be de-listed, that he had no Nomad lined up and was just telling them that to get their votes? Maybe he never had any intention of getting one but said it anyway. Whatever the truth I would be pretty angry with him if I was a shareholder. People backed him based on statements he made which have now turned out to be bullshit. He is certainly not being honest about his description of what happened with the nomad and whose fault it was. It is him who is to blame and you'd have to suspect now it was not incompetence but possibly a deliberate deception. Does King have any track record as a liar? This is not looking good. Dodgy start, big time.

Pretty outrageous that King is trying to blame the previous board when it was directly his fault. http://www.bbc.com/sport/0/football/32171135 Easdale is right here. They were de-listed directly because of King and then King stands up and blames the previous board. The exact opposite of the truth is his position. He really is a glib and shameless liar. More amazing is the willingness of some to accept his blatant bullshit. And now you have no auditor no nomad and and you are not subject to any listing rules. I think you have really ed up letting this guy have the keys. If his start is anything to go by you are especially ed. Already he is just talking out of his arse and making up utter shite.

Given the way it is... with a 64.000% lead... a month away from a referendum. Could you get 'through' that month and get a Yes? If not how % much would be enough?

How will we beat that second time around?

cut & paste

I'll take it as a compliment that was the only part of my post you disagreed with.

To be fair even more Labour members will quietly agree with the sentiments. Ed Miliband is an embarrassing socialist cock. Exactly the kind of labour twat that has let down the working class my whole political memory. The people who have damaged the left are not folk like Thatcher. She was a nutter but they preferred that loony to the left. Even when she was ripping the country apart the left could not win shit. It took phony tony to rebrand you to get elected. As red tories...

http://www.investopedia.com/terms/l/liquiditypremium.asp Dear oh dear...should maybe goggle shit before flapping your gums.

All these years and I never noticed just how variable the date can be, almost a full months variance between some easters.

The reason UKIP exist IMHO is because for decades anyone who said too much immigration was not cost beneficial to UK Plc was immediately labelled a racist. This was not an accident. Same way UKIP has been promoted like . We are living in a ed up world now I can tell you.

From what I saw the one who has the most charisma by far is Farage.

Likeable? No. Psychopathic? Yes. He was also a Blair II, a sitting PM who was also an asset of a foreign power. edit: and I think that is why the Labour Party boaked and went for his clearly weaker and more incompetent sibling.

Miliband is a new Kinnock, unelectable. If the SNP make him so it is political death by association. Stand back from the freak show that is Ed Miliband.

oh feck this, boring.

mmmmm... perhaps King is more ruthless than we imagined. having the shares de-listed (on purpose) is a bit like Cortez burning the boats. "No going back now lads..."

oh did not realize this was on. I would say tonight will be the night Nicola has her first real test as leader.

Puts to this way. In the P&L RFC make a loss. Yet the non controlling interest is attributed a 804 k profit. The controlling interest then has to add that amount to their losses. Even a bad year is a good year for the non controlling interests. I would want to know why.

RFC have an accountant they just do not have anyone to audit the accounts they produce. Regarding the non-controlling investors if you look on the p&l it says a loss of 2.86m but on the changes to equity it is listed as 3.66m. This because 804k of non existent profit was attributed to the non-controlling investor which effectively added to the 2.86m operating loss. Same in the comparatives. Because the same 804k shows up in the equity change of the non-controlling number on the balance sheet I think it must some form of stock award or stock option.

The fact no loan security has ever been issued for Ibrox suggests to me they are unable to do so for some reason no one is talking about, including the new board.

If you look on the balance sheet the non controlling interest doubles while 'the owners' equity is being eroded by the losses. Profits are being taken out and used to give the non controlling interests new equity. It is a little odd looking to me. And by the way this not exactly the 'transparent' set of accounts we were promised and they are certainly no better than the previous board's reports. Why do we still not have a full breakdown of the other operating expenses, i.e. the number that does all the damage on the P&L.

On the P&L what is the 804k to the Non Controlling Interest? This amount is also what the Non Controlling interest increases by on the balance sheet? It is kind of weird expressing it this way. The P&L is a little deceptive because the true loss is 3.66m not 2.86m. For the full year 2014 they lost just over 8m. Or about just shy of 670k per month. Triple H's loan is not going to last long.

So now King is free of all the reporting obligations that went with being listed and having to satisfy a Nomad. And with no auditor to audit the accounts it does sort of make the shareholders look a little vulnerable. It could well be they have voted a wolf into the shepherd's job while losing their remaining sheepdogs. Bit of a sheep theme there I know. I think it is safe to say this will herald the end of King's Huneymoon period. I wonder how this going down on Ranger's Media.