Paul Murray still leaking 2 Daily Retard

[eejay the dj 31,964]

8 hours ago, thehost said:

The cunt was part of a group of arseholes who sat back, watched the club be vilified, watched an uber-arse (bain) sign off his own remuneration package, watched on as debt spiralled. He then proceeded to try and procure the club with no money, then money (most of which was to be financed by a now felon) then he promised, if he was defeated in a vote, that he would walk away only for that to be a lie and turn up when king appeared. Throw in his "border" antics, his #hiredhand gravy approach and his complete inability to add the square root of fuck all, to the betterment of The Rangers and you have plenty of reasons to want the cunt nowhere near the place.

As soon as he was back the old bainites were swarming round the place, not to mention his email chums.

 

Astonishing that you are still in the minority with all this .

 

[AM1872 92]

If you think Paul Murray resigned for any other reason than self preservation you're barking. 

If SG is not signed because there is no money come November we are fucked. Park and King don't want to put their "children's inheritance" in. To be fair neither would I they've turned us into such a basket case.

That article where King says he's looking for new investment in the Daily Retard today is a veiled cry/advertisment for investment to all and sundry. He is so self unaware that he does not realise no one will touch us today with him near the Club. Unbelievable.

Having said that if I had a choice between King and PM I'd take King every day of the week. He's a very smart guy. Paul Murray is an idiot.

They should have just left Chuck of Orange and Cenkos alone. Cenkos would have maybe pumped another £50 million before going into SPFL at up to1.50p if they'd left big hands to run it. To Kings discredit he couldn't see anyone else making money out of it. Same with PM and DP. The bit they didn't understand is that Chucks success would have been our Clubs success too. So what if he made a few quid on the way as long as he put a gun team on the pitch. He was chased whilst we were still in 4th tier! They now think they can go seek external investors like Chuck. Just no chance totally delusional we're toxic. Amanda Staverley wouldn't be able to raise money for us today.

[siddiqi_drinker 14,635]

46 minutes ago, eejay the dj said:

Astonishing that you are still in the minority with all this .

 

@thehost is a bit like Trump in that regard,  because of who he is and the shite he sometimes spouts folk just won't agree with him, not because of what he says but because of a personal dislike!   Certainly, he is not wrong about Mini or that rat bastard Bain. 

[thehost 11,061]

3 minutes ago, siddiqi_drinker said:

@thehost is a bit like Trump in that regard,  because of who he is and the shite he sometimes spouts folk just won't agree with him, not because of what he says but because of a personal dislike!   Certainly, he is not wrong about Mini or that rat bastard Bain. 

Are you saying cunts don’t like me 

[Tomatasauce 1,253]

5 hours ago, BigDak said:

What part is shite?

His patter mate??

[Wullies_bowly_legs 3,802]

1 hour ago, thehost said:

Are you saying cunts don’t like me 

Not just cunts mate.

[Tomatasauce 1,253]

5 hours ago, thebooler said:

A lot of your post is correct, but you go on to spoil it mate by saying King has invested money. He's loaned us money, which he can recall at any time, and that worries me.

What if Barry Scott requests his £6.5m back by next Friday? We're screwed.

Scott wants £6.5m and Kings going to court because he can't find £11m for the share offer.

We could be in a situation very soon where the club need to find £17.5m.

And that's just Scott's loans. What if King decides "Fuck it. I'm off"? We're looking for another 6 or 7 million returned tae him, and another £250k we owe Murray.

The Parks? 

That's the situation we're in mate, and it was Kings money that put us there.

Correct me if I’m wrong but they loaned that money knowing they would never receive it back, it was always clear that it was to be converted to shares.

when it’s Converted into shares an they decide they want to fuck off they can sell their shares to the highest bidder

no one will know except the individuals involved but I’d put my money on it stating as much on legal paperwork of some sort 

[thebooler 4,509]

17 minutes ago, Tomatasauce said:

Correct me if I’m wrong but they loaned that money knowing they would never receive it back, it was always clear that it was to be converted to shares.

when it’s Converted into shares an they decide they want to fuck off they can sell their shares to the highest bidder

no one will know except the individuals involved but I’d put my money on it stating as much on legal paperwork of some sort 

So you're saying that highly successful businessmen would give King several million on loan, and if it looked like their money was in danger, they'd be unable to take it back, because they signed some sort of contract saying they can't do that?

I don't think so. King himself could take his money back if he wanted to.

[Malvern 11,329]

14 minutes ago, thebooler said:

So you're saying that highly successful businessmen would give King several million on loan, and if it looked like their money was in danger, they'd be unable to take it back, because they signed some sort of contract saying they can't do that?

I don't think so. King himself could take his money back if he wanted to.

Dinky did just that with SDM as he was a greedy bastard and wanted even more back. Wonder how much he has clawed back of his "debt" now.

[Tomatasauce 1,253]

38 minutes ago, thebooler said:

So you're saying that highly successful businessmen would give King several million on loan, and if it looked like their money was in danger, they'd be unable to take it back, because they signed some sort of contract saying they can't do that?

I don't think so. King himself could take his money back if he wanted to.

The loan was to Rangers, well the company running the club wtf you talking about?

Shareholders loaning the club money isn’t loaning king money, plus its spent so would be a pointless exercise trying to get it back that’s why it’s to be converted to shares they can do what they like with their shares 

[eejay the dj 31,964]

2 hours ago, siddiqi_drinker said:

@thehost is a bit like Trump in that regard,  because of who he is and the shite he sometimes spouts folk just won't agree with him, not because of what he says but because of a personal dislike!   Certainly, he is not wrong about Mini or that rat bastard Bain. 

I like the Host but for some reason he doesn't seem to like me 

Never replies to my messages 

And I agree with most of what he says too

Maybe I'm also an unlikable bastard  ?

[saltire266 502]

12 hours ago, thehost said:

The cunt was part of a group of arseholes who sat back, watched the club be vilified, watched an uber-arse (bain) sign off his own remuneration package, watched on as debt spiralled. He then proceeded to try and procure the club with no money, then money (most of which was to be financed by a now felon) then he promised, if he was defeated in a vote, that he would walk away only for that to be a lie and turn up when king appeared. Throw in his "border" antics, his #hiredhand gravy approach and his complete inability to add the square root of fuck all, to the betterment of The Rangers and you have plenty of reasons to want the cunt nowhere near the place.

As soon as he was back the old bainites were swarming round the place, not to mention his email chums.

 

Belter of a post!

[weeneily 1,460]

1 hour ago, Tomatasauce said:

Correct me if I’m wrong but they loaned that money knowing they would never receive it back, it was always clear that it was to be converted to shares.

when it’s Converted into shares an they decide they want to fuck off they can sell their shares to the highest bidder

no one will know except the individuals involved but I’d put my money on it stating as much on legal paperwork of some sort 

You are wrong. The loans are simple loans they are not convertible loans as is stated clearly in the accounts.

[Tomatasauce 1,253]

3 minutes ago, weeneily said:

You are wrong. The loans are simple loans they are not convertible loans as is stated clearly in the accounts.

Because the resolution hasn’t been passed? Look I can’t be arsed arguing I pay good money to sit happily stoned but this pish is ruining it. 

Imo NONE of the loans will ever be repaid, they will be converted into shares in such time as its actually possible to do so

i might be wrong but I’m not taking your word for it, unless you have proof?

 

[weeneily 1,460]

5 minutes ago, Tomatasauce said:

Because the resolution hasn’t been passed? Look I can’t be arsed arguing I pay good money to sit happily stoned but this pish is ruining it. 

Imo NONE of the loans will ever be repaid, they will be converted into shares in such time as its actually possible to do so

i might be wrong but I’m not taking your word for it, unless you have proof?

 

The pre emption rights removal resolution 11 was passed. A convertible loan is a convertible loan and has an arithmetic conversion matrix at the time it is created so that the conversion factor is known from the time it is raised (how many shares per £1 of loan). It is shown as convertible loan stock within the liabilities of the balance sheet.   These loans are simple loans (which had specific repayment dates at time of creation) and are declared as normal loan debt within the liabilities of the RIFC Plc accounts that your Mr King signed off. Please refer to them for your proof.   Hope this helps.

[Tomatasauce 1,253]

13 minutes ago, weeneily said:

The pre emption rights removal resolution 11 was passed. A convertible loan is a convertible loan and has an arithmetic conversion matrix at the time it is created so that the conversion factor is known from the time it is raised (how many shares per £1 of loan). It is shown as convertible loan stock within the liabilities of the balance sheet.   These loans are simple loans (which had specific repayment dates at time of creation) and are declared as normal loan debt within the liabilities of the RIFC Plc accounts that your Mr King signed off. Please refer to them for your proof.   Hope this helps.

I’m not going to claim to know much regarding the inner workings of club business, tbh it bores the life out of me so I’ll accept what your saying out of my own ignorance but as business men who know the clubs financial position if they all want their money tomorrow I take it the club goes into admin? Cos the last I checked they loans were close to 20m an expected to rise again. There isn’t 20 odd million to repay them so what happens there? In layman’s terms mind ??

 

[weeneily 1,460]

8 minutes ago, Tomatasauce said:

I’m not going to claim to know much regarding the inner workings of club business, tbh it bores the life out of me so I’ll accept what your saying out of my own ignorance but as business men who know the clubs financial position if they all want their money tomorrow I take it the club goes into admin? Cos the last I checked they loans were close to 20m an expected to rise again. There isn’t 20 odd million to repay them so what happens there? In layman’s terms mind ??

 

If you look at the last accounts (to June 2017) you will see that at that time the loans balance was £15.9 million and of this £12.9million is repayable in July 2018 and £3.0 million is repayable on December 2018.  Until these dates the lenders can do nothing.   If they were to demand payment they have no automatic right to appoint an administrator because the loans are not secured. They would have to petition the court and this would be problematic as they are also running the company so a court would probably refuse to protect the other creditors.   Also, King guaranteed to continue funding (as stated in the going concern part of the accounts) so he cannot refuse to provide funds in the event of ongoing cash flow shortfall which would in itself be a reason for the board to enter administration as it is illegal to trade insolvently. 

The dangerous creditor is Close Bros for their £3.0m loan as it IS secured and they therefore have the right to appoint an administrator without leave of court in the event of default.

[Tomatasauce 1,253]

26 minutes ago, weeneily said:

If you look at the last accounts (to June 2017) you will see that at that time the loans balance was £15.9 million and of this £12.9million is repayable in July 2018 and £3.0 million is repayable on December 2018.  Until these dates the lenders can do nothing.   If they were to demand payment they have no automatic right to appoint an administrator because the loans are not secured. They would have to petition the court and this would be problematic as they are also running the company so a court would probably refuse to protect the other creditors.   Also, King guaranteed to continue funding (as stated in the going concern part of the accounts) so he cannot refuse to provide funds in the event of ongoing cash flow shortfall which would in itself be a reason for the board to enter administration as it is illegal to trade insolvently. 

The dangerous creditor is Close Bros for their £3.0m loan as it IS secured and they therefore have the right to appoint an administrator without leave of court in the event of default.

Cheers for the reply btw mate ??that’s why I avoid the boardroom section on this site I need a joint after reading that, I generally glance at the Rangers accounts stuff, my misses is an accountant an I have to listen to her pish that often I can’t bare to put myself through it intentionally 

i read articles like this an skip the numbers part an look for the bit I can get my head around?

The club took in £5.875 million of additional interest free loans to help boost its working capital in the year to June, 2017 - bringing the total of interest free unsecured loans at that point to £15.9 million. The club also has finance lease agreements totalling £0.5 million.

The club chairman Dave King, who took the reins of the club two years ago, said "the intention" of the loans advanced is that they are converted to shares.

[Del 667]

13 hours ago, Sportingintegritymyarse said:

Folk jumping to the defence of King? 

Have you not read some of the stuff posted in this thread alone???

[thebooler 4,509]

3 hours ago, weeneily said:

You are wrong. The loans are simple loans they are not convertible loans as is stated clearly in the accounts.

Thanks weeneilly. ?

[thebooler 4,509]

2 hours ago, Tomatasauce said:

Cheers for the reply btw mate ??that’s why I avoid the boardroom section on this site I need a joint after reading that, I generally glance at the Rangers accounts stuff, my misses is an accountant an I have to listen to her pish that often I can’t bare to put myself through it intentionally 

i read articles like this an skip the numbers part an look for the bit I can get my head around?

The club took in £5.875 million of additional interest free loans to help boost its working capital in the year to June, 2017 - bringing the total of interest free unsecured loans at that point to £15.9 million. The club also has finance lease agreements totalling £0.5 million.

The club chairman Dave King, who took the reins of the club two years ago, said "the intention" of the loans advanced is that they are converted to shares.

Now you know "wtf I'm talking about".

[SeparateEntityMyArse 53,722]

5 hours ago, Del said:

Have you not read some of the stuff posted in this thread alone???

Yeah.

Who is defending King?

[Tomatasauce 1,253]

 

9 hours ago, thebooler said:

Now you know "wtf I'm talking about".

No I don’t, you were talking a pile of pish an knew fuckall about what you were talking about to me still??

You were saying people are loaning king money, regardless of how it’s paid back it’s the club that were loaned the money not king personally an that they can pull their money out an no legal paperwork can stop them, if you look at what Neily explained to me there is deadlines so no they can’t pull their money out!

 

[BigDak 798]

9 hours ago, weeneily said:

If you look at the last accounts (to June 2017) you will see that at that time the loans balance was £15.9 million and of this £12.9million is repayable in July 2018 and £3.0 million is repayable on December 2018.  Until these dates the lenders can do nothing.   If they were to demand payment they have no automatic right to appoint an administrator because the loans are not secured. They would have to petition the court and this would be problematic as they are also running the company so a court would probably refuse to protect the other creditors.   Also, King guaranteed to continue funding (as stated in the going concern part of the accounts) so he cannot refuse to provide funds in the event of ongoing cash flow shortfall which would in itself be a reason for the board to enter administration as it is illegal to trade insolvently. 

The dangerous creditor is Close Bros for their £3.0m loan as it IS secured and they therefore have the right to appoint an administrator without leave of court in the event of default.

Although what you write is factually correct, I think using the term “dangerous creditor” is a little disingenuous, mate. Yes, secured creditors have something they can call the loan in against but the way you phrase that last paragraph insinuates that there’s something to be concerned about.

The due diligence was done and the loan at £3M as it was deemed a repayable amount for us, one way or another. Your statement that it’s dangerous insinuates that we aren’t going to be able to repay it or that the loan is going to get called up.

[weeneily 1,460]

1 hour ago, BigDak said:

Although what you write is factually correct, I think using the term “dangerous creditor” is a little disingenuous, mate. Yes, secured creditors have something they can call the loan in against but the way you phrase that last paragraph insinuates that there’s something to be concerned about.

The due diligence was done and the loan at £3M as it was deemed a repayable amount for us, one way or another. Your statement that it’s dangerous insinuates that we aren’t going to be able to repay it or that the loan is going to get called up.

I take your point and agree that dangerous may not be the best word to use. My main point was that the board loans are not something to be concerned about.   The concern with the Close Bros loan is that it comes with the authority to appoint an administrator or take possession of assets it is secured against in case of default but I'm sure they will always be top of the list of creditors to be paid.