From P,Z and J , BLUEDELL please have a swatch

[rbr 1,247]

pharez, zarah and judah on July 19, 2013 at 12:04 pm

 

 

ron, especially for you my friend, solid proof that rangers have not any financial problems. first of all let me state, that accounts are very ambiguous and you need to read them, only buffoons like OR say the first thing that comes into their head. and recently OR has been a lazy buffoon.

here is our accounts http://www.londonsto...mentId=11506139 please refer to them as I quote from them.

the first thing that hits you is this, Release of negative goodwill in the statement immediately below all the executive statements. the sum across for this column is 20465 millions. now that is a red herring, it simply is cash put into accounts that isnâ??t there, but because of the distressed sale of ibrox it counts for accounts purposes as part of any profit, though in reality isnâ??t money, but looks like it. its not. this is the way accounts are, terminology, and figures that accounts use.

anyway under this column, you will find operating expenses, now this is the part that has all the buffoons hot under the collar. the figure is 16,572 millions. now part of these operating costs is Amortisation of playersâ?? registrations, 860,000. now this is simply the value of players to the club, because their contracts are one year on, and their sell on value has been reduced, due to their contracts, and the freedom of their ability to move on at the end of them for free, thus their value as sellable assets reduces. again no monetary loss as to what rangers are actually spending, cash, just reduced valuation to the club, but in terms of losing actual money through its a red herring, but to the club their sell on value has reduced and so an operational cost. no cash loss in real terms through spending. so there is nearly 1 million off in reality what the club are spending.

 

now It gets better, please now refer to Condensed consolidated Statement of Cash Flows

For the 7 month period from incorporation to 31 December 2012 (scroll down to you reach there)

now thatâ??s a column. now read Cash used in operations. do you read that everyone, cash used in operations, or in other words operational expenses. now if you read from the first column I quoted from you will see these words. Other, under amortisation, other amounts to 15,712 millions. very ambiguous. well in this column I have brought you down to, here is a lot of these operational costs or expenses. these are the headings

Purchase of trade and assets

Purchase of intangible assets

Purchase of property, plant and equipment`

Proceeds from sale of intangible assets

repayment of RFC 2012 plc football debt

Interest paid

this total comes to 10,822 millions, operating expenses. now the above and the figures, to the right of them, are what Charles green and his partners paid for the purchase of our great club and all of its assets.

this is what the operational expenses are which are included in the operational expenses for accounts purposes.

now it gets better, go below this column. now this is what rangers brought in, which included in this is the share issue. now as you see the issue brought in 30,798 millions, and theres a few more things added into this column for different things. that figure comes out at 32,726 millions. subtract what Charles green and his partners put in for the operational expenses, which must be included on the accounts and you get the figure 21,904. now as you see from the top of the column people were paid for floating the shares to the tune of 713,000 so you have the figure, after clearing all the original investors who contributed to the purchase of the assets, and the interest they charged on their money, rangers had 21,191 millions and owing no one anything, as football creditors paid as well.

now we can remove 860,000 (amortisation or better term depreciation, not actually spending on players current value) and 10,822 millions from the operational costs in the first heading quoted and in reality we then have this figure for the true operational costs of 4.9 million. thatâ??s our true operational costs for the month of may to dec of 2012.

as you see bears we brought in this figure of 9524 millions in revenue and subtract that from the true operational costs and we have 4.6 million to see us through the remainder of the six months, with wages and salaries for the year believed to be around 6 million, and half of the year already paid.

now what you will notice bears in our accounts, something you ill never find in Celticâ??s accounts is these words, Cash and cash equivalents at the beginning of the period 21,191 millions. in other words like mr mather has declared we are living well within our means and have cash in the bank.

its great to be a bear!! sorry for boring you my fellow bears, but sometimes you have to answer buffoons. no offence

[der Berliner 3,247]

rbr, could you post the link given above again, for the on in the article does not work. Thanks

[rbr 1,247]

Sorry mate at work will do it later

[MikeN63 0]

excellent, a man for detail, unlike the majority of the Scottish media who would rather ignore that, continue their lethargic, desk bound life and write crap, whilst pulling a wage.

[rbr 1,247]

http://www.londonstockexchange.com/exchange/news/market-news/market-news-detail.html?announcementId=11506139

[Zappa 0]

How can anyone expect to be taken seriously when referring to others as buffoons at the same time as writing a bunch of paragraphs in English that's akin to a BabelFish translation? The mind boggles!

[Bluedell 5,329]

1. It's dreadfully written. Very difficult to understand.

 

2. Do you really want financial analysis from someone who doesn't know the difference between a thousand and a million?

 

3. He claims that the purchase of fixed assets etc are included in our operational expenses and therefore deducts them,. The problem is that they aren't included and therefore his analysis is totally wrong.

 

4. It's wrong to ignore amortisation of players. It is a real cost. We pay amounts in transfer fees, signing on fees and agents fees, buit dion't wwrite them off the the profit and loss account immediately. It's done over the length of the player's contract. It is a real cost, it has an impact on cashflow and can't be ignored.

 

Best ignored, I'm afraid.

[rbr 1,247]

Cheers bluedell

[der Berliner 3,247]

It would be good to have someone with insight knowledge into such affairs to analyse this. There was a chap called "Stock Broker" over at FF a few years back who seemed to be quite clever about somesuch ...

[Bluedell 5,329]

It would be good to have someone with insight knowledge into such affairs to analyse this. There was a chap called "Stock Broker" over at FF a few years back who seemed to be quite clever about somesuch ...

 

Boss would beg to differ with you on that.

 

It's quite difficult to analyse anything at this point due to the lack of information, the short time period involved and the fact that was such an unusual period as well.