That was certainly my thought. Not happy to lose Worrall but Duffy is a good and experienced centre back. Can’t see him and McKenna being dominated by anyone.
Duffy is terrible. He has been absolutely shambolic for celtic
That's the market we're in though.
Anyway, looking at how we like to keep the ball at the other end of the pitch and also looking at how strong and confident we are and not prone to making any kind of mistakes at all and backed up by a raucous and supportive fan base at home, I can't see there being any problems with this.
Probably due to a big money offer for Worrall.... anything £10m+ will be hard to ignore.
Look, you cannot stand the fact that your best mate, who was allegedly a massive supporter of the Club, employed a disastrous recruitment policy which ran up huge paper debts and in doing so lined his own pockets and those of his family.
You might not agree or like the fact but it is all there in the accounts in black and white - the debt carried over - the repayments - the debentures - all accounted for, all audited and all legally binding.
You can try and blur the issue with wild claim after wild claim if you like, but it does not wash.
If their so good at fancy accounting why don't they get 10m for Fig and leave Joe where he is? They'll live to regret this one.
Look, you cannot stand the fact that your best mate, who was allegedly a massive supporter of the Club, employed a disastrous recruitment policy which ran up huge paper debts and in doing so lined his own pockets and those of his family.
You might not agree or like the fact but it is all there in the accounts in black and white - the debt carried over - the repayments - the debentures - all accounted for, all audited and all legally binding.
You can try and blur the issue with wild claim after wild claim if you like, but it does not wash.
Show 96m being paid then, it isn't complicated...
I'll ask again is this repayment or profit that you're claiming? You seem confused between the two.
As I said lots of faults with his time as chairman which I'm happy to discuss, but let's see proof of your claims that Fawaz paid 1-200m for the club.
I posted the exact wording from the accounts, how many more times do you need to see it before you believe it?
There is no confusion 62.9m was carried over in debt and subsequent amounts borrowed from the Estate, all secured under a debenture; there has been no mention of profit - the money Fawaz and his family had to pump in to pay back the debt was in two forms - new share issues and loans.
Why go to the trouble of applying a charge if there was no amounts owing to the Estate?
If, at the time of sale, the Estate agreed to accept a nominal amount for the Club, say £1, on the condition that the debt had to be taken on and repaid, a scenario which is quite common in buy outs, are you seriously saying that the debt is not counted in the value of what the over all cost was?
Actually you initially said the Doughty estate made 96m from the club, that clearly implies profit. I'll try again if I lend you a fiver and you give it to me back, have I made five pounds?
Second I'm waiting for you to show me 96m leaving the club, tick tock.
If their so good at fancy accounting why don't they get 10m for Fig and leave Joe where he is? They'll live to regret this one.
I gave you the exert from the accounts; if you do not believe it that is your problem.
Now, back to the question:
"If, at the time of sale, the Estate agreed to accept a nominal amount for the Club, say £1, on the condition that the debt had to be taken on and repaid, a scenario which is quite common in buy outs, are you seriously saying that the debt is not counted in the value of what the over all cost was? "
Blimey - if it wasn't for this being great for the post count...... I'm sure you two just argue for the sake of it.... are you married?
Mao - ND/his estate did not make a profit on sale. The money ND pumped into the club was his own money & showed as a Director's Loan, which are repayable.
Granted, there may have been salaries, interest om the debt etc & all loaded onto the club, but at the point of sale or upon redemption of the charge/debenture - the amount 'repaid' was not any higher than the debt.
CP - ND/his estate did (according to the accounts) receive settlement for the debt, which isn't a profit, as you say, as it's repayment if monies introduced. Clearly, Mao can't show monies actually changing hands - he's pointed to accounts that are bound by statute regarding the content.
Clearly all of the above is based upon what we know, hearsay & conjecture etc - it's like someone saying Fawaz pocketed personally money from the sale of players - it's unprovable.
Apart from the odd MH faux pas on Plummer's part it is a civil discussion/disagreement completely void of any insults; surely that is what the Forum is for.
I disagree with your assessment; I will PM you the details later today; I have a meeting at 1:30.
OKD are you saying that the money ND put into the club was repaid to his estate and are you saying that throughout his ownership of the club he was paid a salary and recieved interest on the money he lent it?Blimey - if it wasn't for this being great for the post count...... I'm sure you two just argue for the sake of it.... are you married?
Mao - ND/his estate did not make a profit on sale. The money ND pumped into the club was his own money & showed as a Director's Loan, which are repayable.
Granted, there may have been salaries, interest om the debt etc & all loaded onto the club, but at the point of sale or upon redemption of the charge/debenture - the amount 'repaid' was not any higher than the debt.
CP - ND/his estate did (according to the accounts) receive settlement for the debt, which isn't a profit, as you say, as it's repayment if monies introduced. Clearly, Mao can't show monies actually changing hands - he's pointed to accounts that are bound by statute regarding the content.
Clearly all of the above is based upon what we know, hearsay & conjecture etc - it's like someone saying Fawaz pocketed personally money from the sale of players - it's unprovable.