bossy

Do you actually have a point of any value other than trying to discredit the auditors as somehow signing of something other than a clean audit, you should contact them and point out their area of incompetence otherwise let it be.

I always expected a clean audit. All that tells you is that the accounting has been done right and that there is enough cash to get through the next 12 months. What an audit does not tell you is whether the business is being run properly or whether the management or the Board or competent. Go back and look at the accounts and tell us how they plan to plug that £16 million gap in between revenue and costs. Because that is something the auditors do not and cannot tell you.

And that is not to discredit the auditors. That is just an understanding of what their job is.

I don't recall seeing your name signing off the accounts but I do recall seeing Deloitte's, good enough for me if not for you.

Do you have any understanding as to what an audit actually is?

For me the whole accounts have been just as I expected .... clear as mud !!

 

You have those reporting about the huge director salaries & bonuses, the money that's seems to have used to pay back those who funded the initial takeover etc etc.

 

Then there are those who state that if you look that the figures, taking account of one off costs, increases in revenue over the coming season, the possibility of further cost cutting that the figures aren't that bad.

 

Both of these viewpoints come from people who are knowledgeable in the way of accounts & how they are prepared.

 

Taking all that into account, how are we, the 95% who don't know anything about accountancy, supposed to know what is right or wrong?

The accounts are what they are. As I have said multiple times, the big issue coming out of the accounts is the £16 million gap between revenue and costs. Closing that gap in just one year will be a very tall order. And if they do not manage to do that then new funding will be required.

This isn't an accounting issue, it is a business one.

It has everything to do with Charlotte Fakes and nothing to do with a good set of figures signed off as clean by reputable auditors, I will enjoy the day and the clean bill of health, you make your own enjoyment.

It isn't a clean bill of health. It just means that the financial statements give a true and fair view of the state of the club's affairs at 30 June 2013, that they have been properly prepared in accordance with IFRS and with the requirements of the Companies Act 2006.

In other words, the accounting has been done right.

The auditors do not look at the business model of the club, they do not look at long term revenue considerations, they do not opine on whether our costs are appropriate, etc. etc.. Companies can and do go bust even after the auditors have signed off on the accounts and through no fault of the audit. An audit, for the most part, is a backward looking exercise. Other than 'going concern', what happens in the future is not their problem.

Am i the only one of the opinion that the sooner Frank Blin gets a place on the board the better. At least we would know that we had someone with impeccable credentials in whom we should be able to trust. Reading everything today there seems to be money flying around in all directions. This must be worrying

I don't think Frank Blin is coming back. Not sure what happened there but something not nice made him withdraw.

I see we've changed our broker as well today - is that significant?

As I read the accounts, the fundamental problem is that we have a £16 million gap between revenue and costs. While there is clearly enough cash to see us through the rest of this year, unless that gap gets closed then we will have to go back to the markets for more funding or will have to raise cash by some other means.

With constant changes in brokers and with the requistioners being backed by the main institutional investors, there is a serious question mark over whether this current board will be able to attract further investment from the capital markets.

Personally, I think it unlikely that the Club can reduce a gap as large as £16 million in just one year. So, where will the cash come from? Maybe the Board have cash lined up from their own sources (Zeus, BPH) or maybe they are considering asset sales such as a sale and leaseback of Ibrox or Auchenhowie.

But that £16 million gap is the elephant in the room.

Boss is no fool with financial figures and he seems very calm.

 

So i'm not just coming to the conclusion myself.

Boss is an outstanding accountant. In accounting terms, everything may well be hunky-dory. But in business terms these accounts reveal some really serious issues.

They are rejecting the latest resolution from the concerned shareholders tryting to get new Directors appointed.

I can see this ending up in court.

There's no problem asking questions but it's all gone way over the top.

Not really. Some of the self-enrichment of certain directors and former directors which the accounts have revealed is outrageous. Additionally, the way we have been burning cash and certainly the way our cost base is out of control suggests gross mismanagement.

What these accounts tell us is that, unless drastic cost cutting and/or revenue generation measures are put in place soon then we will be broke in a year and will have to find funding from somewhere.

Load of unnecessary panic by the sounds. Wages are too high but money hasn't been stolen, and we aren't going into administration again.

Pointing out that we have a £16 million revenue hole is hardly 'unnecessary'.

The business problem we face is that our annual revenue is around £16 million (see Note 2 ) and our expenditure is around £32 million (see Note 3).

How that hole gets filled is the key question we need to be asking.

In relation to a possible 'going concern' qualification, it appears that we have enough cash in the bank plus further revenue from season ticket sales and other receipts to make it through the next year. My quick guesstimate is £11 million cash in bank, plus £4.5 million gate receipts gives us around £15.5 million. Add in a few million from other sources and we probably have somewhere in the region of £18-£20 million which is enough to get us through the year.

But it is also quite clear that our costs are higher than our ordinary revenue sources. So we are going to have to increase revenue significantly and decrease costs if we are to make it through subsequent years.

Yep, I had heard that the Requisitioner's 'slate' for the Board was imminent although very disappointed that my own candidature was overlooked. Do we know much about Scott Murdoch and Alex Wilson?

I posted this on another thread. But I think it is relevant to this one given the discussion over the 30-40-50-60-70 million and over the scale and efficacy of the protest.

My own experience in the big bad world of business tells me that when you start to alienate your customers, generally, your days are numbered. Of course there are differences here. Usually, when a CEO/CFO is messing up it is the Board that removes him or her. However, in this case, we have a problem with both the CEO, the CFO and the Board. The other difference is that the club have already got their hands on the season ticket money so that limits the power of supporters (think Michael Porter's five forces model).

So the real leverage here is not the supporters. The real leverage is how much cash the club has and when/if the club starts to run out of cash. Do we have enough cash to get through the rest of the season? Where will new cash come from and who will provide it? How much cash do we actually need until we become cash-flow positive? Will it come from asset sales (e.g. Ibrox, Auchenhowie, players)? Will the current Board be able to find new investors or will they stump up the cash themselves? Is Admin 2 a realistic prospect?

And this is the kind of analysis that fearless journalists like Jackson need to be indulging themselves in because it cuts right to the heart of the matter. The strength of the McColl team resides in their representation of institutions that have put a lot of money into the club. It isn't unusual for investors to have to put in more cash as a business gets back on its feet and a cash call would not shock the institutions. But if they are saying they will not put new money into the club due to the present board and if there is a cash crunch then that becomes an existential problem.

Our media love indulging in trivia when it comes to reporting Rangers and the latest stushie about the troops singing 'naughty' songs is a good example of something that is wholly trivial and unimportant. Equally, the stuff about Companies House is not really very important either. So what if the Club have been caught being economical with the truth in the matter? It isn't the first time and it is unlikely to be the last. More importantly, it doesn't really tell us anything about the real state of affairs.

So, for Keith Jackson or any other journalist looking in, my advice is to follow the cash. It is an old adage but a true one nevertheless. And that is where the story is.

You claimed three quarters of the stadium sang sack the board.

Both sides say 30- 50%.

 

 

You claimed this board have blew 70 Million.

Both sides say 40 - 50 Million

Only 40-50 million? Oh well, that's okay then

Exactly, it's pretend Protestant/Loyalists being criticised by pretend Catholic/Nationalists, who pretend to be offended by each other. Lot of bullshit.

As church attendance decline so the levels of offence at imagined religious slights seems to increase. A very strange paradox.

My own experience in the big bad world of business tells me that when you start to alienate your customers, generally, your days are numbered. Of course there are differences here. Usually, when a CEO/CFO is messing up it is the Board that removes him or her. However, in this case, we have a problem with both the CEO, the CFO and the Board. The other difference is that the club have already got their hands on the season ticket money so that limits the power of supporters (think Michael Porter's five forces model).

So the real leverage here is not really the supporters. The real leverage is how much cash the club has and when/if the club starts to run out of cash. Do we have enough cash to get through the rest of the season? Where will new cash come from and who will provide it? Will it be from asset sales (e.g. Ibrox, Auchenhowie, players)? Will the current Board be able to find new investors or will they stump up the cash themselves? Is Admin 2 a realistic prospect?

And this is the kind of analysis that fearless journalists like Jackson need to be indulging themselves in because it cuts right to the heart of the matter. The strength of the McColl team resides in their representation of institutions that have put a lot of money into the club. It isn't unusual for investors to have to put in more cash as a business gets back on its feet and a cash call would not shock the institutions. But if they are saying they will not put new money into the club with the present board and if there is a cash crunch then that becomes an existential problem.

Our media love indulging in trivia when it comes to reporting Rangers and the latest stushie about the troops singing 'naughty' songs is a good example of something that is wholly trivial and unimportant. Equally, the stuff about Companies House is not really very important either. So what if the Club have been caught being economical with the truth in the matter? It isn't the first time and it is unlikely to be the last. More importantly, it doesn't really tell us anything about the real state of affairs.

So, for Keith Jackson or any other journalist looking in, my advice is to follow the cash. It is an old adage but a true one nevertheless. And that is where the story is.

It doesn't really matter what we sing, people like Greenslade and the other permanently offended ones will find something to whine about.

No way it was anywhere near 70%, more like 30-40%

 

'The sun sapping people's energy' aye, right.

Even 30%-40% is huge. That is 13k - 17k Bears.

Absolutely.

 

McColl & co will hopefully build their case steadily with increasing pace towards the AGM date.

 

The last week and particularly the final 2 or 3 days before the AGM will be critical.

Let us not forget that the key audience here are the other shareholders including the support. While the public relations battle is important, mobilising the supporter-shareholders and other floating voters is equally so.

why bother what investor in their right mind will back a board member that 40k ticket holders want gone.

 

it would be suicide for an investor.

The key question is whether Rangers will need to go back to the capital markets for more cash. If that is the case then the current Board have a serious problem and their only solution will be to stump up the cash themselves or try to soldier on through asset sales. We will know the answer to that question when the accounts are released.

My guess is that the McColl/Murray team have a very good idea of what the real state of play is. They have, no-doubt, got Malcolm Murray and Walter Smith onside and I am sure that there are Ibrox insiders who are friendly to their cause. However, from their point of view, it is risky to speculate - even if it is informed speculation - without having actual facts in hand.

A few days ago I postulated that the McColl/Murray team needed to reset their strategy and come up with an alternative management team and Board. From the rumours of a new CEO candidate it sounds like they are doing that. I would not be surprised to see some more names coming forward to flesh out their slate.

Naturally, I have forwarded my CV to the interested parties.

It sounded as if a lot joined in on the 18th minute, but quiet on the 72nd.

 

How much of the Stadium would you say took part?

I was not at the game and followed it on the Radio feed. However, judging by the noise and by what the commentators were saying both during and after the game, it sounded like a fairly generalised protest at the 18th minute.

I think that what today has showed is that people like McMurdo and those on a certain forum are seriously out of step with the rest of the support.

plgsarmy mentioned the AGM might be on the 24th too. If that's the case, then I think they'd need to have accounts out by the 3rd, is that right?

I am not sure what the rules are with regard to that.

I saw that post on Follow Follow and thought that it might be the one. It's certainly a stupid thing to post but it's not a threat so I don't understand what the club is reported to be doing.

People post stupid things all the time. The posts are often deleted or even more often ignored. If the club are choosing to make an issue of this it is for an ulterior motive and I think we all know what it is.