Off Topic Pointless point-scoring thread

  • Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
  • Log in now to remove adverts - no adverts at all to registered members!
<[O__o]>;4814146 said:
How is it "quite clear" that we couldn't afford Jelavic. We bought him for £4m and sold him for £5m. As has already been demonstrated, we had easy £20m worth of assets in guys like Naismith, McGregor, Edu, Lafferty and Davis to name a few, which could've been used to pay down the debt HAD Whyte chosen to do so instead of gambling it all on red.
Click to expand...

so why wasn't this - rather obvious - remedy embarked upon prior to Whyte taking over ?
 
Yeah Timmy, Rangers would have realized at least the £10m in player sales to satisfy the PAYE and NIC bill in time to meet UEFA rules to retain a licence.....the fact that the transfer window didn't open till after that deadline is inconsequential to the fairy tales of Bankwupt Bawwie.
 
Biggus Diccus said:
I bought a laptop at the weekend.

I didnae actually pay for it, I knocked it, but there's assets in my house worth more than the laptop and I intend to sell it to some **** so I bought it, so there.
Click to expand...

You're talking about a wholly different scenario. When D Murray bought Jelavic, we could "afford" him, obviously during his brief stay in Glasgow, the ownership of the business changed hands and an insolvency event ocurred. I believe we actually paid R Vienna for Jelavic, so your post is about as relevant as me talking about Fergus McCann buying Celtic from the White's and the old railway line that used to run up by Parkhead from Dalmarnock before heading off into Carntyne.

Do ye get me?
 
rogueleader said:
so why wasn't this - rather obvious - remedy embarked upon prior to Whyte taking over ?
Click to expand...

Because the debts were serviceable.

I'm in £150k debt just now, my house is worth more than that and I'm paying the debt. I could get rid of the debt in an instant by selling my house but then I'd have no house and would need to either get more debt or buy a ****ter house with the equity. I've got a family that I need to house and they like their house, so I'll just pay the debts.
 
RebelBhoy said:
Yeah Timmy, Rangers would have realized at least the £10m in player sales to satisfy the PAYE and NIC bill in time to meet UEFA rules to retain a licence.....the fact that the transfer window didn't open till after that deadline is inconsequential to the fairy tales of Bankwupt Bawwie.
Click to expand...

You're also missing the point, but you're missing a chromosome too so I guess I can't be too harsh on you. :)

You must log in or register to see images
 
RebelBhoy said:
Yeah Timmy, Rangers would have realized at least the £10m in player sales to satisfy the PAYE and NIC bill in time to meet UEFA rules to retain a licence.....the fact that the transfer window didn't open till after that deadline is inconsequential to the fairy tales of Bankwupt Bawwie.
Click to expand...


Ah, but in his 'real world' that he lives in, he knows how these things work.
 
<[O__o]>;4814211 said:
You're talking about a wholly different scenario. When D Murray bought Jelavic, we could "afford" him, obviously during his brief stay in Glasgow, the ownership of the business changed hands and an insolvency event ocurred. I believe we actually paid R Vienna for Jelavic, so your post is about as relevant as me talking about Fergus McCann buying Celtic from the White's and the old railway line that used to run up by Parkhead from Dalmarnock before heading off into Carntyne.

Do ye get me?
Click to expand...

See if this wasn't a hun, I'd attempt to reason with this utter gibberish.

"D Murray paid for Jelavic" <rofl>

Rapid threatened to take Green to court and still didn't receive the full amount.

http://www.express.co.uk/sport/football/356576/Rangers-to-pay-Jelavic-debt

You still maintain you could afford him on the basis of assets - utter balls. You would have to free the capital in those assets in order to "afford" it unless you live in some barter based society. You can release capital through release schemes without selling an asset but YOU NEED TO PAY THAT BACK. Simply owning something doesn't mean you get to accumulate more without either selling something or borrowing something - you do not accumulate additional assets on the basis of existing ones unless you reduce the CAPEX (capital expenditure as opposed to OPEX or REVEX - I do this for a living remember) value of your existing assets.

Talking gibberish as a way of discrediting straight analogies is a fine way to go, though.

This is brilliant <laugh>
 
<[O__o]>;4814246 said:
Because the debts were serviceable.

I'm in £150k debt just now, my house is worth more than that and I'm paying the debt. I could get rid of the debt in an instant by selling my house but then I'd have no house and would need to either get more debt or buy a ****ter house with the equity. I've got a family that I need to house and they like their house, so I'll just pay the debts.
Click to expand...

But, having the house means you can "afford" another house. Selling the existing asset is immaterial <rofl>
 
To be blunt, you can't afford two houses.

You can sell your existing house and buy a new one.

Rangers bought two houses - they could've afforded the new house if they'd sold the existing one but they didn't.

Analogy over.
 
Right, so When you said Rangers could sell players to pay debt your point wasn't that Rangers could sell players to service debt.

I understand completely.
 
<[O__o]>;4814246 said:
Because the debts were serviceable.

I'm in £150k debt just now, my house is worth more than that and I'm paying the debt. I could get rid of the debt in an instant by selling my house but then I'd have no house and would need to either get more debt or buy a ****ter house with the equity. I've got a family that I need to house and they like their house, so I'll just pay the debts.
Click to expand...

the debts were only serviceable with the cooperation of a - for want of a better word - sympathetic bank....clearly a more detached view was that they were not viable.

At what point in your analogy could the lender of your mortgage which allowed you to purchase the house decide that they wanted their money back ?

You must log in or register to see images


Edges hoose must stay open
 
Biggus Diccus said:
See if this wasn't a hun, I'd attempt to reason with this utter gibberish.

"D Murray paid for Jelavic"

Rapid threatened to take Green to court and still didn't receive the full amount.

http://www.express.co.uk/sport/football/356576/Rangers-to-pay-Jelavic-debt

You still maintain you could afford him on the basis of assets - utter balls. You would have to free the capital in those assets in order to "afford" it unless you live in some barter based society. You can release capital through release schemes without selling an asset but YOU NEED TO PAY THAT BACK. Simply owning something doesn't mean you get to accumulate more without either selling something or borrowing something - you do not accumulate additional assets on the basis of existing ones unless you reduce the CAPEX (capital expenditure as opposed to OPEX or REVEX - I do this for a living remember) value of your existing assets.

Talking gibberish as a way of discrediting straight analogies is a fine way to go, though.

This is brilliant
Click to expand...

When Murray sold to Whyte, we could afford him. Our ability to afford players was based on borrowing money from the bank like how many companies and countries fund themselves. I'm not basing our ability to buy players based on assets, I'm basing our ability to pay either 1) Lloyds or 2) the PAYE/NI bill using assets which was how this discussion started.

If that's your job, let's hope reading and understanding words isn't bonus based.
 
rogueleader said:
the debts were only serviceable with the cooperation of a - for want of a better word - sympathetic bank....clearly a more detached view was that they were not viable.

At what point in your analogy could the lender of your mortgage which allowed you to purchase the house decide that they wanted their money back ?

You must log in or register to see images


Edges hoose must stay open
Click to expand...

<laugh>
 
Biggus Diccus said:
To be blunt, you can't afford two houses.

You can sell your existing house and buy a new one.

Rangers bought two houses - they could've afforded the new house if they'd sold the existing one but they didn't.

Analogy over.
Click to expand...

We're talking about different things.

I'm saying at the end of the D Murray tenure, had Lloyds issued and immediate demand, then the debt could've been paid in theory.

At the admin stage, we could've paid off the debt using players sales IF HMRC hadn't skelped us with a phantom tax bill.
 
<[O__o said:
>;4814429]
Biggus Diccus said:
To be blunt, you can't afford two houses.

You can sell your existing house and buy a new one.

Rangers bought two houses - they could've afforded the new house if they'd sold the existing one but they didn't.

Analogy over.
Click to expand...

We're talking about different things.

I'm saying at the end of the D Murray tenure, had Lloyds issued and immediate demand, then the debt could've been paid in theory.

At the admin stage, we could've paid off the debt using players sales IF HMRC hadn't skelped us with a phantom tax bill.
Click to expand...

So when were you planning on selling these players?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back