Bluedell

It's a way of differentiating the time periods being referred to.

Jackson was revealing the Ticketus story while Leggat was still praising Whyte.

I can't get too upset at that. He's just trying to say what he wants and doesn't want under "his watch". I don't think he's trying to say that everything is due to him in this case. However he could word it a bit better to avoid any misunderstanding.

If he's talking about the meeting with supporters on Saturday, he made no mention of supporters getting banned for not policing it themselves. Hmm. It is also the most stupid thing he has said since arriving at Rangers. You can't ban innocent people. Did the person hear it? Were they sure that the offending line was definitely sung? Green himself admitted that he often doesn't know what the fans are singing so how can he ban people for something that he can't do himself? This is a massive own goal.

Perhaps it's not the best named concept in accountancy. It's just a term for reflecting the difference when someone pays for something and he pays less than the value of the assets he is buying. Best not to try and rationalise it outside of that if you don't have to.

6IAR was a dreadful season. Hateley was the only shining light.

When you buy a company you usually pay more than the total valaue of its assets less its liabilities. You are buying a brand as well as the bricks and mortar. The difference between the value of the assets and the amount paid is the goodwill. We were in the unusual case of paying less than the total of the net assets, which creates negative goodwill. To put it in simplistic terms, we have recognised the amount that was underpaid for the assets of the club as profit.

Correct, although any cash advances would be included in the cash balance and a corresponding deferred income amount. The soundbites are reassuring (although we've heard them from previous regimes) but as was said earlier in the thread, it's next season that will be of most interest. It's difficult to know what element of costs are on the high side due to players (Edu, Bocanegra, Goian etc) being paid a lot at the start of the season, for example. I don't feel I have enough information to make a judgement on it. there's certainly nothing that gives me a sleepless night but there are still some unanswered questions.

Yeah. the double negatives stink. Sorry. Wasn't that happy when I was using them. I was just trying to write in context of what he had said.

I haven't studied who has paid for what shares in any detail. However what I would say is that there is a difference between "the club" (RFC) and the "holding company" that owns the club (RIFC). These accounts show the combined results of both companies, but in effect the original investor's cash was used to buy the trade and assets of the club and for that they have got shares of RIFC. It's not bridging finance. They just got shares for it. It may be that they got more shares for their money than the other investors but that's all part of getting in at the start and taking the risk. There may be some element of the original investors getting cash back but I can't see it from these accounts.

Boss is probably happy with the accounts (not sure, I haven't really read his comments) but he'd be more scathing than me about the above article.

Not strictly correct. There are 18 home league games and we had played 8 by the end of December so we will have accounted for 8/18s of the income. Incorrect. I very much doubt that any club doesn't not follow what we have done. No we couldn't. The auditors would not have signed off on that. I'm a bit bemused by this breakdown. Operating expenses were £15.7 million. The first 5 items would not be included in operating expenses so the numbers don't add up. Only because you appear to have ignored a chunk of expenditure. We really aren't breaking even. We made an operating loss of £7m. Not all the expenditue may be reoccuring in future years and income should increase but we are a bit away from breaking even based on these figures. I'm not sure what cash he is saying should be paid back. Investors put in a total of £30.8m so again the sums don't add up.

Nope. I may make a few comments later.

the article that rbr refers to...not written by me! Okay guys. Sorry for the very quick breakdown but felt it was important to get this out therefore the scaremongers started causing trouble again. For those who are used to looking at accounts feel free to have a look at them (http://www.londonstockexchange.com/exchange/news/market-news/market-news-detail.html?announcementId=11506139) and engage in a discussion with myself on twitter if you so choose (@celticareanewco) Most fans though just want to know the bottom line and I hope to be able to explain this to everyone as well as raising some questions that I have from the accounts. Okay here is the money we have generated thus far: Gate receipts and hospitality (to December 31) £6,411,000 Sponsorship & Advertising £381,000 Broadcasting £391,000 Commercial £552,000 Retail and merchandise £941,000 Other income sources £848,000 Total £9,524,000 The club have another £8,117,000 sitting in the bank for deferred gate receipts. Basically what this means is that if you purchased a season ticket for £300 and the accounts are being published halfway through the season then only £150 of your season ticket money will show up on the balance sheet. It’s an accounting practice that a lot of clubs don’t follow hence you normally find a club makes a profit for the first six months then a big loss for the second six months so this is something I like. I also like it as we could easily have put a false position on our accounts and declared a £1m profit rather than a £7m loss if we just put all this money on the balance sheet. So on top of that money we have generated – a total of approx £17.5m – we have the share money of £22m which leaves us a total of £39.5m. We still have £21m sitting in the bank so the club has spent £18.5m this last six months. Where has this money went? Purchase of assets from administrators £6,750,000 Purchase of intangible assets £1,276,000 Purchase of property and plant £2,161,000 Repayment of Oldco debts £2,832,000 Player purchases £609,000 Staff costs £4,000,000 Property costs £1,000,000 Total £19,628,000 This shows that the money coming in matches what is going out and therefore despite what lies may be pedalled by those on the other side of the city everything, financially speaking, is above board. So what are we looking at for end of year figures? I’d imagine end of year turnover will be in the region of £20-22m and expenditure will be £30-32m giving a loss of £10m. Although this initially appears worrying a lot of our expenses this year – purchase of property/purchase of assets from administrators/repayment of oldco debts – are one of fees so in reality we are breaking even in SFL3. So starting from next year we would expect to break even plus have £20m in the bank. This is a position that we should all be very comfortable with. There is however one area where I would really question the accounts… Why is the club now having to pay for the purchase of assets from the administrators? The original investors paid for the assets and have already saw the value of shares from the purchase increase by 600%. Surely the club should not be saddled with paying back this money? I find it wrong that fans have invested £14m in gate receipts and £5m in shares and own just 10-15% of the club whereas the original investors have put in £5.5m and now own 60-65% of the club between them. I suppose that’s just the way of the world though…

Full accounts shown here http://m.londonstockexchange.com/exchange/mobile/news/detail.html?announcementId=11506139

I think it will include the Wallace balance, and the January purchases would have virtually no impact on profit anyway.

Green was suggesting that it might have been 55 but was told it had been decided it was 54. I get the feeling it's not a strip as such but just a top.

Meanwhile in the real world.... It's a bit frustrating when the fight against sectarianism is hijacked by those with their own agendas who want to throw in non-sectarian songs into the mix. All you achieve by trying that is to slow down real progress by muddying the waters.

It's difficult enough to get rid of the sectarian stuff without people trying to confuse things by lumping other issues into it.

Aye singing about the the IRA is pure sectarian.

Agree and I believe that the punishment then was a 10 points deduction.

So if we hadn't paid someone else and had paid HMRC but still owed the same amount of cash in total then we would not have had a transfer ban? Is that really what you're trying to argue? You are Stewart Regan and I claim my £5.

Tax evasion means that you are trying illegally escape tax that is due. I don't believe that there was ever any question that the cash wasn't due (other than perhaps on the STC which is a separate issue). It just wasn't paid. A totally different thing. I'm sure virtually every administration has an element of HMRC being owed cash. Motherwell certainly did whe they went into administration. I don't recall them being hit with a transfer ban. If you want to raise the issue of illegal trading then the law is very clear on that, and it is the directors that are soley responsible and should be taken to court but this also hasn't happened a year on. I repeat what I said. Administration means that you can't pay your debts. You can't just make up rules that say that because it's HMRC you get a bigger punishment or apply one rule for Rangers because it's them and another rule for everyone else.

Administration means you can't pay someone. You get a 10 points deduction for that. That's the rules. Just because the organsation that we couldn't pay is HMRC makes no difference. You can't start making up punishments just because someone gets offended at who the cash is owed to. Trying to justiify an illegal transfer ban because we went into administration is Reganesque.

Yes, very well done by Chris. Impressive performance. Also well done to a certain regular for getting his tweet read out. How much do you pay them, Frankie?