ShedTA Posted January 6, 2015 Share Posted January 6, 2015 You're one of the top posters on this topic In your view? Very kind of you debian. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShedTA Posted January 6, 2015 Share Posted January 6, 2015 Why did United feel they had to cover-up a loss? Not sure what you mean cover up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShedTA Posted January 6, 2015 Share Posted January 6, 2015 Why did United feel they had to cover-up a loss? Ah sorry this is all back to the idea that the top league clubs are finished without rangers? Nope, I don't buy that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flure Posted January 6, 2015 Share Posted January 6, 2015 In your view? Very kind of you debian. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larky Masher Posted January 6, 2015 Share Posted January 6, 2015 Ah sorry this is all back to the idea that the top league clubs are finished without rangers? Nope, I don't buy that. Where did I suggest that? Your club posted loss but that fact was buried deep in the press release, why do that? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flynnyboy Posted January 6, 2015 Share Posted January 6, 2015 (edited) Is it so inconceivable that they may just have come to that decision out of the best interests of another member club? Debian quite clearly doesn't get the rules of the league that rangers operate in. The exact same thing happened with thistle and Ken bates in the 80s. Bates owned a majority shareholding in Chelsea and took over partial ownership of thistle. The steedmans of the SFA and Clydebank raised their concerns and it was upheld. Could've been a very profitable time for thistle, especially considering the rise of chelsea. Was there a vendetta against thistle? No, thems the rules. But of course it's a celtic led vendetta against rangers, or whatever the entity is that took over the newly created scottish league membership following the ending of Glasgow Rangers' membership. Edited January 6, 2015 by flynnyboy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Debian Posted January 6, 2015 Share Posted January 6, 2015 Debian quite clearly doesn't get the rules of the league that rangers operate in. The exact same thing happened with thistle and Ken bates in the 80s. Bates owned a majority shareholding in Chelsea and took over partial ownership of thistle. The steedmans of the SFA and Clydebank raised their concerns and it was upheld. Could've been a very profitable time for thistle, especially considering the rise of chelsea. Was there a vendetta against thistle? No, thems the rules. But of course it's a celtic led vendetta against rangers, or whatever the entity is that took over the newly created scottish league membership following the ending of Glasgow Rangers' membership. You're an idiot. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Debian Posted January 6, 2015 Share Posted January 6, 2015 (edited) In your view? Very kind of you debian. Haha okay. I'll give you that one. Edited January 6, 2015 by Debian Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flynnyboy Posted January 7, 2015 Share Posted January 7, 2015 You're an idiot. Am I? That's nice. Although as my post shows even an idiot can see that you are a deluded fool! Night night sweetheart Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flynnyboy Posted January 7, 2015 Share Posted January 7, 2015 (edited) Error. In fact that double post probably does make me an idiot! Edited January 7, 2015 by flynnyboy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EddardStark Posted January 7, 2015 Share Posted January 7, 2015 a poster on a Rangers forum sums up the current state of play. "OwnershipDave King has bought a significant stake in the club believed to be around 15% of the Club. These shares were bought from previous investors Artemis and Milton as well as River & Mercantile though the latter have retained a stake in the club thought to be around 5.7%. They are believed to side with King and his Allies though a proxy has not been confirmed.The 3 Bears (The Douglas Park Consortium) have bought a 16% stake from Laxey Partners, who, disguisted with Chairmen Somers conduct and with their representative chucked off the board allowed the aforementioned 3 Bears to claim a significant stake. It is worth noting that some of the figureheads within the consortium (George Letham and George Taylor most notably) hold their own personal stake with the club so in practice T3B have access to around 20% of the shares.The two groups mentioned above form the backbone of the good guys group. They will find allies in both the RST and the Rangers First scheme whilst it has been touted that Keiran Pryor (who himself holds just over 1%) may also be on board with both of the above. McCoist himself holds a healty portion of shares so he too could be relied on to help effect change.It has been reported that the coalition of the above (though they each are separate shareholders, not acting as one) form a significant enough block of voting power to oust the current board. There are a number of ways this can be done, much more civilly through a vote of no confidence to the Nomad who would ask the board to step down or as appears most likely through an EGM, a meeting of all shareholders to discuss urgent business.In simple terms though the power that the aforementioned group hold between them means that1. There is no way that a sale and leasback can be approved, they have more than the required 25% to act as a block to any special resolution.2. The new shareholders have more than enough shareholding to exert serious pressure on the current board and indeed they should have enough to completely remove them so long as they can secure 50% +1 vote to ensure.3. An EGM can be called which would give the wig block 20 days to find a way out of their current predicament. This is about as long as they can legally stall for if T3B or Dave King decide to wield the power to call an EGM.4. The club is running out of money at a serious rate of knots so the crunch may come a lot sooner than that. There is no doubt that the wigs are using desparate measures to keep the lid on the going ons at the club for the last few years. There is no question in my mind that they are doomed, its just a case of how much damage they are prepared to do to bleed as much money out as possible in their final days.In the other corner is the Wig block. BPH and Margarita Holdings are represented by the Easdales who account for a block of 26% as it stands. Also in that corner is the dangerous Mike Ashley who holds 9% and a stranglehold on our merchandising operation. He is not permitted to take full control of Rangers as it breaches SFA regulations, though he could still do this and take the mammoth sanctions that will come his way.There has been talk of a negotiation with Mike Ashley so that he is allowed to protect his merch deals in return for backing away from the situation but Ashley himself has made a power play in appointing another of his Yes men Barry Leach to the Rangers board.As it stands Ashley dominates the boardroom and has the power to approve loans to the club to keep it running, though he may not have anymore assets to secure it against as there is contested ownership of Ibrox and Auchenhowie by Craig Shyte. He has a £3m loan secured against the Albion Car Park and Edmiston House so he also has the power to cause a few cash flow issues by calling the loan in.I've done my best to explain and hopefully this helps a few more bears to understand the state of play at the moment. Robert Sarver was a third party who may invest at a later date but for now he has had his approach rebuffed." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
adamntg Posted January 7, 2015 Share Posted January 7, 2015 Why did United feel they had to cover-up a loss? I'd be concerned if it was an operating profit and a net loss, but it wasn't. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mitre Posted January 7, 2015 Share Posted January 7, 2015 obsession Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShedTA Posted January 7, 2015 Share Posted January 7, 2015 Where did I suggest that? Your club posted loss but that fact was buried deep in the press release, why do that? Rubbish. They posted a net profit. You do realise that company accounts consist of gains and losses in different areas of the business? It's the bottom line that most people care about. How's the bottom line down govan way these days? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scunnered Posted January 7, 2015 Share Posted January 7, 2015 Rubbish. They posted a net profit. You do realise that company accounts consist of gains and losses in different areas of the business? It's the bottom line that most people care about. How's the bottom line down govan way these days? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShedTA Posted January 7, 2015 Share Posted January 7, 2015 ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larky Masher Posted January 7, 2015 Share Posted January 7, 2015 Rubbish. They posted a net profit. You do realise that company accounts consist of gains and losses in different areas of the business? It's the bottom line that most people care about. How's the bottom line down govan way these days? So Dundee Utd made a gross profit of £991k an operating loss of £114k and net profit of £1.218m. So the difference between the operating loss and net profit must be due to the one -off exceptional gain relating to the exit of banking arrangements with the Bank of Scotland and not anything to do with how the club was run, which was at a loss. Next year you should have real profits and the annual report will include the two transfers fees. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
adamntg Posted January 7, 2015 Share Posted January 7, 2015 Football is all about one-off exceptionals unless you are Man United. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larky Masher Posted January 7, 2015 Share Posted January 7, 2015 Football is all about one-off exceptionals unless you are Man United. So financial success depends on luck? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Parklife Posted January 7, 2015 Share Posted January 7, 2015 When did negotiating with creditors become "luck"? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
adamntg Posted January 7, 2015 Share Posted January 7, 2015 So financial success depends on luck? Not at all. United invested hundreds of thousands in their youth system when others were spunking money on wages and transfer fees. Sure, the dividends come sporadically but there's planning involved. Seems to be working quite well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Langtonian Posted January 7, 2015 Share Posted January 7, 2015 (edited) When did negotiating with creditors become "luck"? yes when were talking negotiating your way out of debt with a tax payers funded bank i tried it,they told me to get to f*ck So Dundee Utd made a gross profit of £991k an operating loss of £114k and net profit of £1.218m. So the difference between the operating loss and net profit must be due to the one -off exceptional gain relating to the exit of banking arrangements with the Bank of Scotland and not anything to do with how the club was run, which was at a loss. Next year you should have real profits and the annual report will include the two transfers fees. exactly if the bank had told them to do one utds accounts would look a whole lot different Edited January 7, 2015 by Langtonian Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShedTA Posted January 7, 2015 Share Posted January 7, 2015 So Dundee Utd made a gross profit of £991k an operating loss of £114k and net profit of £1.218m. So the difference between the operating loss and net profit must be due to the one -off exceptional gain relating to the exit of banking arrangements with the Bank of Scotland and not anything to do with how the club was run, which was at a loss. Next year you should have real profits and the annual report will include the two transfers fees. Those results will also have included costs associated with the bank debt as that was only exited last year. We will not see these costs either going forwards. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShedTA Posted January 7, 2015 Share Posted January 7, 2015 So financial success depends on luck? Hmmm...in some cases it could be argued. I.e. Your club will be "lucky" to see out the rest of the season. ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShedTA Posted January 7, 2015 Share Posted January 7, 2015 Larky for the year ended June 2014 it is a good news story for the club. They have manipulated a profitable result despite no Derbys and yes, the lack of rangers games. Why focus purely on the bad news? Is it that you want to? Quote Link to comment 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.