Jump to content

 

 

Recommended Posts

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.

 

But Chuck was quite right to take 5% of the gross company revenue as salary and benefits, right ? Hmmmmm

Link to post
Share on other sites

What about "opinion shopping"? (Note that we're already on our 2nd NOMAD... Why couldn't we keep Cenkos despite Malcolm Murray supposedly pleading [see images below*] with Green & co not to change? Was there perhaps a form of opinion shopping going on there? Were Cenkos maybe unhappy with certain aspects of Green & co's governance? Were Cenkos too strict for Green & co or was the NOMAD switch simply about bypassing the lock-in period?)

 

Back to the "going concern issue": What about fears of a "self-fulfilling prophecy" as they call it? There's some quite astounding stats on this with a massive amount of companies which go under having been given a seemingly clean bill of health immediately before sinking.

 

*Here's the leaked M. Murray emails as a single image:

 

GGmJJFW.png

 

No doubt there are fears. Being given a clean bill of health only matters at the date at which the report is issued anyway, we are now 3 months removed from that date and a whole lot could have changed, though the auditors should have been taking current situation into account too. Again, though, they signed off on Saturday... what would there be to prevent the Board giving themselves a massive unexpected bonus on Monday (hypothetical and simplistic, not considering the legality, but proves the point) that made the club insolvent? Auditors would have had no idea as they signed off on Saturday and were not informed of what was about to take place..... but now we would be bankrupt again. Point being, going concern is considered at particular points in time and thereafter things can, and DO, change.

 

For someone to state "we wont be going into administration" is naive - because that is a statement that really cant be said of any company with 100% assurance (IIRC Apple almost went broke when Jobs left them the first time..... and they were far healthier financially than us...).

 

Opinion shopping can happen, but with the Big 4 accounting firms there is far more at stake than a 90k audit fee should the be caught allowing opinion shopping. For that size of a fee it wouldnt be worth it to Deloitte or any of the other acocunting big 4.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Where did you see that mate?

 

 

There's a link on Chris Graham's twitter feed - but here is the notice...

1 October 2013

Rangers International Football Club plc

 

("Rangers" or the "Company")

 

Appointment of Nominated Adviser

 

The Company is pleased to announce that Daniel Stewart & Company plc ("Daniel Stewart") has been appointed as Nominated Adviser to the Company with immediate effect. Daniel Stewart will continue to act as the Company's Sole Broker.

 

For further information please contact:

 

Rangers International Football Club plc

 

Craig Mather, CEO

Brian Stockbridge, FD

Tel: 0141 580 8647

 

 

Daniel Stewart & Company plc

Tel: 020 777 6578

Paul Shackleton / James Thomas / Martin Lampshire

 

 

 

Newgate Threadneedle

Tel: 020 7148 6143

Graham Herring / Roddy Watt / John Coles / Fiona Conroy

 

 

Media House International Ltd

Jack Irvine

Tel: 020 7710 0020

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.


×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.