Union City Blue 0 Posted November 17, 2009 Share Posted November 17, 2009 MIH own Rangers, is there some convoluted mechanism by which Rangers own Ibrox and Murray Park outwith the remit of their ultimate holding company Murray International, which makes the properties assets of Rangers and not Murray International. It would be helpful if you could guide me through the last part of page 21, all those naughts get me confused, as does who owns what. http://www.murray-international.co.uk/documents/MURRAYREPORTS2007.pdf You should probably have a look in the latest accounts mate. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bluedell 5,329 Posted November 17, 2009 Share Posted November 17, 2009 Maybe you're the one who's been beating on an 'empty drum'. You're not wrong. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bluedell 5,329 Posted November 17, 2009 Share Posted November 17, 2009 MIH own Rangers, is there some convoluted mechanism by which Rangers own Ibrox and Murray Park outwith the remit of their ultimate holding company Murray International, which makes the properties assets of Rangers and not Murray International. It would be helpful if you could guide me through the last part of page 21, all those naughts get me confused, as does who owns what. http://www.murray-international.co.uk/documents/MURRAYREPORTS2007.pdf Nothing convoluted about it. Each of the companies in the Murray group owns assets. MIH consolidates (adds together) each of these companies in its group accounts which is what you are looking at. MIH produces a consolidated balance sheet and a company only balance sheet. if you look at the balance sheet on page 12, you will see that MIH owns no land or buildings. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zappa 0 Posted November 17, 2009 Share Posted November 17, 2009 (edited) Sorry if someone has already mentioned this one. One of the questions asked could be - 'Would the club be willing to organise a simple (multiple choice) survey by mail of the season ticket holders, shareholders & foreign based fans groups on the subject of fan ownership of the club?'. Reason being, that this is probably THE only way for the club & the 3 leading fans groups to gather the the information required to gauge the relevant mass opinion on the subject of fan ownership of RFC. Edited November 17, 2009 by Zappa 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
spanner 0 Posted November 17, 2009 Share Posted November 17, 2009 Nothing convoluted about it. Each of the companies in the Murray group owns assets. MIH consolidates (adds together) each of these companies in its group accounts which is what you are looking at. MIH produces a consolidated balance sheet and a company only balance sheet. if you look at the balance sheet on page 12, you will see that MIH owns no land or buildings. Thank you Bluedell. it is the �£623 million of tangible assets on page 12 that is the problem. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
craig 5,195 Posted November 17, 2009 Share Posted November 17, 2009 FFS. I thought we had been through all this on RM? Ibrox and Murray Park are owned by Rangers and are in Rangers' balance sheet. They appear in the consolidated balance sheet of MIH because MIH own Rangers, but they do not appear in MIH's own balance sheet. spanner, are you the guy in the Finance Asset Division of Lloyds or are you being fed by your brother who is ? If your questions are being directed by either instance then you prove my earlier point about folks working in finance who actually DO NOT know how financial statements work. As BD has said, Murray park and Ibrox are the assets of RANGERS. MIH is the majority shareholder of Rangers. In the standalone financial statements of Rangers the two said assets are on the Balance Sheet. In the standalone statements of MIH they are nowhere to be seen. As Rangers is effectively a subsidiary of MIH under IAS and IFRS (formerly we had UK GAAP) a consolidated set of financial statements is required (i.e. a combining of the parent company's financial statements with the subsidiary's). The assets only appear on the consolidated statements because MIH owns Rangers. All of this BD has already told you. To be fair though BD, Frankie asked this question here and some folks here are not members of RM and it IS a valid question and no reason, IMO, that it cant be asked to highlight pertinent questions on differing forums. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
craig 5,195 Posted November 17, 2009 Share Posted November 17, 2009 Thank you Bluedell. it is the �£623 million of tangible assets on page 12 that is the problem. What is the problem with the assets spanner and I will try to explain, as far as possible, in layman's terms ? 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
craig 5,195 Posted November 17, 2009 Share Posted November 17, 2009 By the way... that is one ugly-looking Annual Report - whoever designed that needs shot ! 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
spanner 0 Posted November 17, 2009 Share Posted November 17, 2009 What is the problem with the assets spanner and I will try to explain, as far as possible, in layman's terms ? As I understand it Bluedell tangible assets are of a physical nature, you would need a lot of pens and pencils, vehicles and plant to have �£630 million worth and not a building to put a desk in. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
craig 5,195 Posted November 17, 2009 Share Posted November 17, 2009 I could be wrong with this but the accounts of MIH look like a stereoptypical holding company set of accounts. Basically good legal entity structures (generally speaking of course) have a holding company in place and the holding company will own shares in the other entities (i.e. "holding" shares) but what you do is you make your trading entities separate and distinct. What this does, for the most part, is ensure that if the trading entity goes under then the holding company (and all the other trading entities) need not necessarily get dragged down with it. Ultimately the holding company is the parent of the other entities but they are limited to the share capital that they inject into said trading companied. Thus, they are not forced to be responsible for the financial obligations of the other entities. This has the effect of creating "silos" which means each trading entity is standalone save for the share capital held by the parent and any other trading entities that invest in them. Often this is done because the trading entities are in different types of business and so it makes sense to keep them separate - but it is also done as a way to protect each company from each other. There most definitely can be an element of co-mingling if, for example, the parent/holding company has any parental guarantees (basically guaranteeing the loans and obligations of the other group companies) or if there are any inter-company loans, for example. The reason this looks like a stereo-typical parent/holding company is because MIH (if you look at the two far right columns, which are the MIH ONLY numbers) they don't have any assets of their own, save for their investments in subsidiaries, one of which will be Rangers). So the assets, being Murray park and Ibrox will be under the legal ownership of Rangers and not MIH. MIH owns no assets of its subsidiaries but it does own those said subsidiaries. The assets are Rangers assets. 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.