BrahimHemdani 1 Posted February 13, 2017 Share Posted February 13, 2017 he bought them -had to buy them- to gain control of the Club. Yes he did; but that still doesn't make it an investment in the Club. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Uilleam 5,966 Posted February 13, 2017 Share Posted February 13, 2017 Yes he did; but that still doesn't make it an investment in the Club. And the cost of land does not figure in the price of a house. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrahimHemdani 1 Posted February 13, 2017 Share Posted February 13, 2017 And the cost of land does not figure in the price of a house. Yes it does; but King did not buy Ibrox Stadium; leastways I don't think he did; it's owned by the Company. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrahimHemdani 1 Posted February 13, 2017 Share Posted February 13, 2017 (edited) so you don't agree the term investment is linked to the project? And costs associated with a project cannot be tallied or referred to as investment even though thats the definition of investment? Mr King is not stupid person, he has run numerous companies; but he is also a person who has been proven to be a liar in a court of law. I am quite sure he knows the difference between a personal investment and the costs of running a company. Put simply, it is my belief that he is deliberately exaggerating the amount of money he and his fellow directors have invested in the Club and he is doing that because he also knows full well that most people do not understand the difference. As rbr has demonstrated the figure of £30 million was the amount he suggested would be needed to return the Club to its former glories i.e. the amount that would be needed to be spent on players and possibly infrastructure; I don't believe that anyone who was listening at that time thought he was referring to the cost of buying the Club. Let me try to explain this another way. If I buy a company that sells widgets for £5 million then that £5 million does not appear anywhere in the company's profit and loss and account. The issued shares are on the Balance Sheet but who owns them doesn't affect the profitability of the company. The income I get from selling widgets is the company income, the cost of producing the widgets i.e. the manufacturing cost is then deducted to produce the gross profit. The expenses of running the company e.g. wages, heat & light, repairs, renewals and maintenance etc etc are then deducted from the gross profit to produce the net profit. These expenses are all or mostly tax deductible. The cost to me of buying shares in the company is not a company expense nor is it tax deductible by the company or by me (except in certain specialised circumstances). The return I get for my investment is the dividends the company might pay out of its profits. If you don't believe me or BD then I suggest you watch the latest edition of Dragons' Den and you will hear Peter Jones explain it to the Irish couple with their range of baby products. http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b08fn624 Please believe I am not trying to be sarcastic and I'm sorry if it comes across like that but I hate the fact that Mr King is trying to pull the wool over people's eyes and is obviously succeeding in some cases. The plain facts are that he and his fellow Board members have lent the Club £12.9 million which they hope to convert into shares in due course. That is an investment in the Club. Prior to that he and his associates spent £5.1 million buying shares in the Club. That is not an investment in the Club, it is a personal investment which allowed them to take control of the Club. Edited February 14, 2017 by BrahimHemdani deleted repeated "and" 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rbr 1,266 Posted February 13, 2017 Share Posted February 13, 2017 Brahim could you not have appeared and said that 4 hours ago lol 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
the gunslinger 3,366 Posted February 13, 2017 Share Posted February 13, 2017 I expect he hoped to put 30 million into rangers but the easdales forced them to spend some elsewhere. Perhaps the cant afford both. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
aweebluesoandso 290 Posted February 13, 2017 Share Posted February 13, 2017 (edited) Mr King is not stupid person, he has run numerous companies; but he is also a person who has been proven to be a liar in a court of law. I am quite sure he knows the difference between a personal investment and and the costs of running a company. Put simply, it is my belief that he is deliberately exaggerating the amount of money he and his fellow directors have invested in the Club and he is doing that because he also knows full well that most people do not understand the difference. As rbr has demonstrated the figure of £30 million was the amount he suggested would be needed to return the Club to its former glories i.e. the amount that would be needed to be spent on players and possibly infrastructure; I don't believe that anyone who was listening at that time thought he was referring to the cost of buying the Club. Let me try to explain this another way. If I buy a company that sells widgets for £5 million then that £5 million does not appear anywhere in the company's profit and loss and account. The issued shares are on the Balance Sheet but who owns them doesn't affect the profitability of the company. The income I get from selling widgets is the company income, the cost of producing the widgets i.e. the manufacturing cost is then deducted to produce the gross profit. The expenses of running the company e.g. wages, heat & light, repairs, renewals and maintenance etc etc are then deducted from the gross profit to produce the net profit. These expenses are all or mostly tax deductible. The cost to me of buying shares in the company is not a company expense nor is it tax deductible by the company or by me (except in certain specialised circumstances). The return I get for my investment is the dividends the company might pay out of its profits. If you don't believe me or BD then I suggest you watch the latest edition of Dragons' Den and you will hear Peter Jones explain it to the Irish couple with their range of baby products. http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b08fn624 Please believe I am not trying to be sarcastic and I'm sorry if it comes across like that but I hate the fact that Mr King is trying to pull the wool over people's eyes and is obviously succeeding in some cases. The plain facts are that he and his fellow Board members have lent the Club £12.9 million which they hope to convert into shares in due course. That is an investment in the Club. Prior to that he and his associates spent £5.1 million buying shares in the Club. That is not an investment in the Club, it is a personal investment which allowed them to take control of the Club. BH are you saying that should a new share issue be offered, the likes of King and the 3Bears will take back their original investment (shares) to buy the club , in the form of equity from the new share issue. Edited February 13, 2017 by aweebluesoandso 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Uilleam 5,966 Posted February 13, 2017 Share Posted February 13, 2017 Mr King is not stupid person, he has run numerous companies; but he is also a person who has been proven to be a liar in a court of law. I am quite sure he knows the difference between a personal investment and and the costs of running a company. Put simply, it is my belief that he is deliberately exaggerating the amount of money he and his fellow directors have invested in the Club and he is doing that because he also knows full well that most people do not understand the difference. As rbr has demonstrated the figure of £30 million was the amount he suggested would be needed to return the Club to its former glories i.e. the amount that would be needed to be spent on players and possibly infrastructure; I don't believe that anyone who was listening at that time thought he was referring to the cost of buying the Club. Let me try to explain this another way. If I buy a company that sells widgets for £5 million then that £5 million does not appear anywhere in the company's profit and loss and account. The issued shares are on the Balance Sheet but who owns them doesn't affect the profitability of the company. The income I get from selling widgets is the company income, the cost of producing the widgets i.e. the manufacturing cost is then deducted to produce the gross profit. The expenses of running the company e.g. wages, heat & light, repairs, renewals and maintenance etc etc are then deducted from the gross profit to produce the net profit. These expenses are all or mostly tax deductible. The cost to me of buying shares in the company is not a company expense nor is it tax deductible by the company or by me (except in certain specialised circumstances). The return I get for my investment is the dividends the company might pay out of its profits. If you don't believe me or BD then I suggest you watch the latest edition of Dragons' Den and you will hear Peter Jones explain it to the Irish couple with their range of baby products. http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b08fn624 Please believe I am not trying to be sarcastic and I'm sorry if it comes across like that but I hate the fact that Mr King is trying to pull the wool over people's eyes and is obviously succeeding in some cases. The plain facts are that he and his fellow Board members have lent the Club £12.9 million which they hope to convert into shares in due course. That is an investment in the Club. Prior to that he and his associates spent £5.1 million buying shares in the Club. That is not an investment in the Club, it is a personal investment which allowed them to take control of the Club. Really? Really? Do we discount the acquisition costs in any appraisal? Good luck with your bank in that regard, old boy. Actually, do leave off, it is embarrassing. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scott7 6,173 Posted February 13, 2017 Share Posted February 13, 2017 Depends what you're appraising. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Uilleam 5,966 Posted February 13, 2017 Share Posted February 13, 2017 Depends what you're appraising. Indeed. But if you have to acquire the ground, the patent, the enterprise......... 0 Quote Link to post 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.