Financial expert's Rangers warning

[Hildy 0]

Fair speculation but it won't hide or change what Deloittes have to say in the note where they should sign-off on 12 months of the business being able to trade (going-concern).

 

It will be interesting and informative to see how RIFC plan to finance the business / Deloittes being 'happy' that it is reliable.

 

 

ps. Patey is a half-baked 'financial expert' who has struggled to see anything coming throughout the Omnishambles. Get a real one who isn't afraid to call things out as they are.

I can understand your view of Patey. He has commented periodically throughout this debacle and I can't recall him ever saying anything insightful. I'm sure he knows his stuff but his comments have rarely added anything worthwhile to the debate.

[buster. 4,808]

Patey a 'half baked' financial expert ??? LOL Would a real one be you per chance ?

 

Morning Rab !!

 

It's interesting you should ask that.

When I think about it, the ongoing 'omnishambles' is such that whoever may be tasked as a 'financial expert' to judge what is going on at Ibrox has to go beyond the mere nuts and bolts of how things might usually develop and include the hidden and unknown 'spi.v factor/MO'.........that is, if he hopes to have a chance of being in the right ballpark.

 

What we have is someone relating Rangers to a normal business, which in recent years means that you have no chance of getting it right. Tbf, it's very difficult/dangerous at times to second guess the 'sp.iv factor' and I wouldn't expect Patey to do so. However I would expect him to make very clear that this was the case, even if he did so with toned down references.

 

ps. I'm no financial expert.

Edited September 15, 2014 by buster.

[buster. 4,808]

Given that the directors forecast of ST sales required to confirm the going concern basis (after due enquiry) last time has proven to be wide of the mark (for whatever reason) it will be extremely interesting to see (a) what the directors say now about the Club's ability to continue to trade solvently and (b) the auditors statement in that regard.

 

It is also difficult to see Deloittes continuing in the role; I'm sure they don't need the hassle.

 

Why exactly do you see it difficult for Deloittes to continue in their role ?

 

ps. I'm struggling to understand the enboldened text in your first paragraph.

If you have the time could you spell it out with dates/numbers please.

[buster. 4,808]

I can understand your view of Patey. He has commented periodically throughout this debacle and I can't recall him ever saying anything insightful. I'm sure he knows his stuff but his comments have rarely added anything worthwhile to the debate.

 

Yes, the TV companies could have saved the money and placed a 'textbook' on the sofa and quoted from it.

 

As previously mentioned, the textbook and RIFC/TRFC are not aligned. One day there will be many books charting the sum of 'textbook+spi.vary'.

 

What might have been interesting would have been the use of an expert like Patey beside an 'ex-sp.iv' (if such a thing exists) and seeing what they came up with.

[the gunslinger 3,366]

Why exactly do you see it difficult for Deloittes to continue in their role ?

 

ps. I'm struggling to understand the enboldened text in your first paragraph.

If you have the time could you spell it out with dates/numbers please.

 

 

the half year accounts said a rise in season book numbers was needed to remain a going concern.

[buster. 4,808]

the half year accounts said a rise in season book numbers was needed to remain a going concern.

 

Thank's GS !

I thought that to be the case but I'm confused by some of the wording related to what seems to have happened.

[True_Ger_1872 2]

I think the AGM will be telling as to what will happen in the second half of the season. Rangers normally sell half-season tickets which I think will possibly be the only route the board will try and rely on without resulting in major fan outrage.

 

If the AGM comes to pass and major changes take place at boardroom level (doubtful, I know) - do we think that will see a high uptake of the half season tickets which would undoubtedly help us see off the second half of the season??

[Zappa 0]

Neil Patey's facts & figures look completely wrong, in fact they're absolutely miles off.

[Zappa 0]

The club themselves stated that if 15 million shares were taken up it would take them through to the end of the current year.

 

No they didn't. What was stated in the Open Offer was "At the minimum level of subscription additional working capital will be required towards the end of the current calendar year." but that could mean anything. October, November and December are all in the final quarter of the calendar year.

 

Of the £3million they have raised, around £500,000 of it will go on expenses leaving them with £2.5million.

 

It was claimed £3.13m was raised and the offer stated costs/expenses of £370k which would leave £2.76m.

 

Broadly speaking, going on the figures the club has given, they will then need to bring in at least £2million to get them through to the end of the season.

 

Was this interview conducted in a pub with 10 pints and a couple of fag packets?

[forlanssister 3,050]

I doubt that they would resign because an audit is "hassle" as such. It's not actually that difficult, even with the issues of going concern.

 

If they were to resign then it would be more likely because they did not have confidence in the truthfulness of the directors.

 

They didn't have a problem with the veracity of Green, Stockbridge et al, even I concede what we have now is several steps up from there.