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]>;4817933 said:
You've still not answered yesterdays questions.

Could Rangers have paid Lloyds off by selling their players?
Click to expand...

Cos that was the only debt <rofl>

I didn't answer your post because it was childishly wide eyed - if the point was that Rangers could've paid off Lloyds (creditor 1 of 276 - almost all racked up before Whyte took over) - this does not mean that Rangers could "afford" Jelavic (your original point).

If I sell all my possessions, I can't afford something with that money because I need some of my possesions.

Hence, I told you how releasing capital in assets works.

Because you have built 20 sheds, it doesn't mean you can use their market value to buy 20 more sheds without parting with them.

If you want to look at Rangers demise through the near-mythologised re-telling you posted in that infantile "question", you're a bigger mug than I originally took you for.
 
Biggus Diccus said:
Cos that was the only debt

I didn't answer your post because it was childishly wide eyed - if the point was that Rangers could've paid off Lloyds (creditor 1 of 276 - almost all racked up before Whyte took over) - this does not mean that Rangers could "afford" Jelavic (your original point).

If I sell all my possessions, I can't afford something with that money because I need some of my possesions.

Hence, I told you how releasing capital in assets works.

Because you have built 20 sheds, it doesn't mean you can use their market value to buy 20 more sheds without parting with them.

If you want to look at Rangers demise through the near-mythologised re-telling you posted in that infantile "question", you're a bigger mug than I originally took you for.
Click to expand...

Why can't you answer the question?

It's yes or no.

The rest of your post has more holes than Dev's string-vest.
 
<[O__o]>;4817956 said:
Why can't you answer the question?

It's yes or no.

The rest of your post has more holes than Dev's string-vest.
Click to expand...


Which question? If Rangers sold their best players at the time could they pay the NON-SERVICEABLE called in part of their debt which amounted to about 2% of their net debt?

Why yes <rofl>

That is your explanation of how they could "afford" another £5m outlay without offset?

Jesus ****ing Christ <rofl>
 
So Rangers sign another player during their 18 month transfer embargo the laughable oldie Stevie Smith , how many clubs have released him in his career ???his career highlight was getting away with the most obvious stonewall penalty not given , when he brought done Lennon at the Copland Road a minute after we had scored ..
 
Biggus Diccus said:
Celtic can "afford" Messi, cos if we sell every other player and staff member we have, we might have enough
Click to expand...

This is brilliant stuff from "this is ma joab" Dickass.

Using YOUR logic, you can't afford your house because.

1) you don't have £150k now

2) the eventual mortgage payment is 3 times the amount borrowed.

<rofl> <laugh>

Celtic could afford Messi, if a borrower loaned them the dough.

Again using your logic, nearly every football club in Europe is insolvent.

Everyone knows, Murray borrowed money from HBOS/BoS during the good years. Once that bank hit the skids, Lloyds took them over and called in the cash on his entire buisness. He's not the only big player to have the bank call in their cash.
 
<[O__o]>;4817975 said:
This is brilliant stuff from "this is ma joab" Dickass.

Using YOUR logic, you can't afford your house because.

1) you don't have £150k now

2) the eventual mortgage payment is 3 times the amount borrowed.

<rofl> <laugh>

Celtic could afford Messi, if a borrower loaned them the dough.

Again using your logic, nearly every football club in Europe is insolvent.

Everyone knows, Murray borrowed money from HBOS/BoS during the good years. Once that bank hit the skids, Lloyds took them over and called in the cash on his entire buisness. He's not the only big player to have the bank call in their cash.
Click to expand...

We did this the other week.

I don't own my house. If I stopped paying my mortgage now, I'd find out straight away who owns it - I paid a 10% deposit and have only been paying it for a year.

If I die, the insurance will pay it off and the missus will get a lump sum - if I **** up and am unable to keep re-paying, the house is not mine.

You are everything that's wrong with a debt-dependancy form of capitalism - is David Murray your dad?

The only winners are the lenders themselves (one of whom, I work for).
 
<[O__o]>;4817979 said:
Could Rangers have paid off the £18m owed to Lloyds by selling 3 or 4 players?
Click to expand...

Biggus Diccus said:
Which question? If Rangers sold their best players at the time could they pay the NON-SERVICEABLE called in part of their debt which amounted to about 2% of their net debt?

Why yes <rofl>

That is your explanation of how they could "afford" another £5m outlay without offset?

Jesus ****ing Christ <rofl>
Click to expand...

I am done.

You can ask it again if you like. It doesn't make the question any less ******ed or the answer any less obvious.
 
In Summary.

David Murray took over Rangers in 1986. For 25 years ge used smoke and mirrors shifting debt around in order to get into more and more debt.

Everyone could see the club was ****ed for about 6 years. Murray wanted out. Found an out to a guy who everyone knew to be an asset stripper, yet for whatever reason the Bares went with it.... The main reason was that no **** was dumb enough to think this could be turned around.

The whole thing fell apart, clearly by the design of the asset stripper. Yet here we are with Bawwy blaming the asset stripper for asset stripping rather than the guy who ****ed the club in the first place.

Given that MIH fell apart at great expense to the taxpayer, surely SURELY it stands to reason that the salvagable parts of his empire would have been.... You know.... Salvaged.

Unless of course you are a ****ing fiscal **** up, them you may think differently.
 
RebelBhoy said:
In Summary.

David Murray took over Rangers in 1986. For 25 years ge used smoke and mirrors shifting debt around in order to get into more and more debt.
Click to expand...

During Murray's first 10 years, Rangers were highly profitable, during the 9IAR years, they made a profit. Murray systematically asset stripped Rangers, selling off the car park, Edminson house, Broomloan road, catering, merchandising etc. to himself amongst others I might add.

RebelBhoy said:
Everyone could see the club was ****ed for about 6 years. Murray wanted out. Found an out to a guy who everyone knew to be an asset stripper, yet for whatever reason the Bares went with it.... The main reason was that no **** was dumb enough to think this could be turned around.
Click to expand...

Rangers fans had no say to who the business was sold to. 95% of the boardroom said no. In my opinion, Murray was forced by the bank to sell to Whyte, Murray and the bank KNEW where he got the money from to pay off Lloyds and Lloyds, nervously watching MIH rack up £1bn worth of debt order Murray to sell of lose his buisness.

RebelBhoy said:
The whole thing fell apart, clearly by the design of the asset stripper. Yet here we are with Bawwy blaming the asset stripper for asset stripping rather than the guy who ****ed the club in the first place.

Given that MIH fell apart at great expense to the taxpayer, surely SURELY it stands to reason that the salvagable parts of his empire would have been.... You know.... Salvaged.

Unless of course you are a ****ing fiscal **** up, them you may think differently.
Click to expand...

When did MIH fall apart?
 
<[O__o]>;4818032 said:
So I was right and you were wrong?

In 2011, Rangers could've paid off Lloyds with their assets.

<applause>
Click to expand...

That's not even what you originally said <rofl>

Using the house analogy, you're suggesting that having a mortgage on a house (asset/debt) means you can "afford" to buy another house (Jelavic).

I have wrestled the pig, it has enjoyed getting dirty and I've been cheapened - that's the closest thing to victory you have.
 
<[O__o said:
>;4818024](null)
Click to expand...

<[O__o said:
>;4818024](null)
Click to expand...

It was all built on debt. Which is fine if you can manage it... But Rangers couldn't. The answer was to borrow more. Borrowing against borrowed monies is mental. Shifting debt around to achieve that is mental.

And of course Murray was forced to sell. The bank wanted its money back because it was blindingly obvious where this was going..... Lo and behold..... Look what happened.

You could have saved Rangers in 2005. You couldn't in 2011, let alone January 2012.

As for when MIH fell apart, I would think the bank having to prop it up would give a fairly good indication of that. A bank which in turn was propped up by public monies.
 
Biggus Diccus said:
That's not even what you originally said

Using the house analogy, you're suggesting that having a mortgage on a house (asset/debt) means you can "afford" to buy another house (Jelavic).

I have wrestled the pig, it has enjoyed getting dirty and I've been cheapened - that's the closest thing to victory you have.
Click to expand...

Using your analogy, you can't afford anything unless you have the liquid capital to purchase the asset.

Which quite clearly demonstrates that your talking ****e again.

You brought Jelavic into it not me.

My involvement in this pointless thread was to demonstrate that the HMRC tax bill sunk OldCo, and (at present) isn't even due to be paid.
 
<[O__o]>;4818168 said:
Using your analogy, you can't afford anything unless you have the liquid capital to purchase to asset.

Which quite clearly demonstrates that your talking ****e again.

You brought Jelavic into it not me.

My involvement in this pointless thread was to demonstrate that the HMRC tax bill sunk OldCo, and (at present) isn't even due to be paid.
Click to expand...

<laugh>

Mission accomplished then.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back