RANGERRAB 3,263 Posted June 9, 2014 Share Posted June 9, 2014 Next year I believe. It was in our accounts about it. Between whom ? Which parties? 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
the gunslinger 3,366 Posted June 9, 2014 Share Posted June 9, 2014 Between whom ? Which parties? Whyte and green over Rangers assets. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RANGERRAB 3,263 Posted June 9, 2014 Share Posted June 9, 2014 Whyte and green over Rangers assets. More chance of me becoming the next pope than Whyte winning that one.... 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
the gunslinger 3,366 Posted June 9, 2014 Share Posted June 9, 2014 More chance of me becoming the next pope than Whyte winning that one.... he's won the first part and given green openly admits he conned him i would say whyte has an excellent chance. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RANGERRAB 3,263 Posted June 9, 2014 Share Posted June 9, 2014 he's won the first part and given green openly admits he conned him i would say whyte has an excellent chance. Once the CVA got refused Whyte was irrelevant. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
the gunslinger 3,366 Posted June 9, 2014 Share Posted June 9, 2014 Once the CVA got refused Whyte was irrelevant. given we know there was a binding agreement to sell the assets to sevco5088 and that green freely admits whyte was sevco 5088 i think a judge may well disagree. just based on what we know for sure. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RANGERRAB 3,263 Posted June 9, 2014 Share Posted June 9, 2014 given we know there was a binding agreement to sell the assets to sevco5088 and that green freely admits whyte was sevco 5088 i think a judge may well disagree. just based on what we know for sure. Sevco 5088 was an english company which could not be re-registered as a Scottish company hence the decision to go to Sevco Scotland.I find the idea that Whyte somehow still owns Rangers as absolutely hilarious. Even mad Phil couldn't think that one up......or could he? 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zappa 0 Posted June 9, 2014 Share Posted June 9, 2014 Used to fund the original purchase ? In what way? Millions of pounds of the IPO cash is still unaccounted for to this day and repeated questions on the subject have been constantly answered with bullshit about "one-off costs" (and variations on that theme), but never, ever, properly detailed. In the TRS article by Arnold Black he stated the following: IPO Money Much has been written about the funds raised through the IPO share issue. It is impossible to isolate this item, but the way the money has been used is detailed in the Cash Flow notes above. Which relates to: Consolidated Statement of Cash Flows (page 27) So where has the cash gone? Firstly, the revenue generated in the year from day-to-day operations wasn’t enough to meet the day-to-day costs and the cash needed to fund this shortfall was £7.6M. In addition to the operating revenue coming in through the business, £29.79M was received in cash from the proceeds of shares, both initially and through the later IPO issue. A further £1.05M was received from the sale of player contracts. That’s a total of £30.84M. That money has been used up as follows: To fund the day-to-day operational cash shortfall £7.56M To acquire the assets from the administrators £6.75M To purchase property and equipment £3.27M To purchase players’ contracts £1.33M To make finance lease payments £0.5M Interest charges incurred £0.23M That leaves the balance of £11.2M in the bank. That is a shortened summary of the main financial statements in the accounts, but what else is of interest in the accounts? Auditors’ Report (page 20) The auditors have issued an unqualified audit report. That means that, among other things, they are satisfied that the accounts give a true and fair view and they have also satisfied themselves that the projections that they have seen are robust enough for them to agree that the company remains a going concern for the next 12 months. That is 12 months from the date of signing the audit report (not 12 months from the year-end). They have referred to a potential liability arising from legal claims made by Craig Whyte and Aidan Earley, stating that the outcome of these claims cannot be determined at this stage. Auditors Fees The auditors have charged £90,000 for the audit of the group but have also charged £594,000 or other work in respect of the flotation, investigation and tax advice. http://www.therangersstandard.co.uk/index.php/articles/current-affairs/288-an-analysis-of-the-rangers-accounts 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.