buster. 4,808 Posted December 2, 2014 Share Posted December 2, 2014 (edited) The figure of £2.7 million allegedly being unavailable has been common knowledge for some considerable time and needs no scaling up for two years, however the figures scaled up have been arrived at makes them no less of a nonsense. The fans groups who hold shares will be aware that they can have their legal representatives request sight of Ashley's contracts with the club, why don't they do that rather than indulge in pointless and absurd speculation. This is the second time you have used the figure of 2.7M in your two posts on this thread. The first time I saw this number was on the 29th of August this year, when our incompetent, potless and Charles Green friendly ex-NOMAD published a regulatory notice, "Correction of Open Offer". "The Company had an unaudited cash balance of £4.258 million at 30 June 2014. Included in this unaudited cash balance is £2.72 million relating to Rangers Retail Limited, which is not immediately available as working capital to the Group as a whole." http://rangers.g3dhosting.com/regulatory_news_article/388 Just to be clear, that 2.72M related to Rangers Retail Ltd.,............ not TRFC. ie. profits that should be divided between Sports Direct and TRFC. Is "allegedly" required as it clearly said that at the end of June 2014, none of that money was available as working capital to the group as a whole ? -------------------------------------------------------------- Regards your second point. Bluedell just posted above "........ It could be that our share of the profits is only £590K but we can't tell for sure unless we see the detailed agreement, which would never be released to us on commercial grounds." Edited December 2, 2014 by buster. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Calgacus 8 Posted December 2, 2014 Share Posted December 2, 2014 The figure of £2.7 million allegedly being unavailable has been common knowledge for some considerable time and needs no scaling up for two years, however the figures scaled up have been arrived at makes them no less of a nonsense. The fans groups who hold shares will be aware that they can have their legal representatives request sight of Ashley's contracts with the club, why don't they do that rather than indulge in pointless and absurd speculation. What's your authority for this? 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
quattro 0 Posted December 2, 2014 Share Posted December 2, 2014 The figure of £2.72 million is a figure plucked from thin air, which is why I used it twice hoping someone would challenge and correct it. The correct figure from the Interims till Dec 2013 is, Included within cash balances is £1,669,000 relating to Rangers Retail Limited, which is not immediately available as working capital to the Group as a whole., it makes one wonder what else has been misinterpreted. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
buster. 4,808 Posted December 2, 2014 Share Posted December 2, 2014 The figure of £2.72 million is a figure plucked from thin air, which is why I used it twice hoping someone would challenge and correct it. The correct figure from the Interims till Dec 2013 is, Included within cash balances is £1,669,000 relating to Rangers Retail Limited, which is not immediately available as working capital to the Group as a whole., it makes one wonder what else has been misinterpreted. It is you who is getting confused or trying to confuse. The 2.72M figure was an updated number within an unaudited cash balance of £4.258 million at 30 June 2014. See link in my previous post. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
boss 0 Posted December 2, 2014 Share Posted December 2, 2014 I think the confusion then arises from how much of that is due to us after what costs (surplus stock and 'onerous' lease contracts - Note 17/page 45) are accounted for. Obviously we are supposed to get 51% by way of a dividend but it seems one has never been approved by RR. But 51% of what figure isn't clear to this layman... RR has actually paid a (very) small dividend - see page 28 of the Accounts. Just to tie up a few numbers, as Bluedell says RR made a profit of £1.655m to date (£1,157k this year and £498k last year). No dividend was paid last year therefore SD's minority interest was £244k (p25) carried into this year. SD's share of profit this year was £567k (p23) and they received a dividend of £109k (p28) leaving a minority interest due to SD of £702k (p25) at the year end. (244+567-109) Another way to look at that is: RR profit to date £1.655m SD's 49% = £811k Dividend to SD this year £109k Leaving £702k I agree with Bluedell that only some of the money in the bank that we can't currently get our hands on can possibly have come from RR profit. The rest was presumably paid in by us/SD to set up RR. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
quattro 0 Posted December 2, 2014 Share Posted December 2, 2014 I am neither confused nor confusing, the mythical £2.72 million quoted by rhabid press organs is covered by one word, unaudited, and the figure appears in no official accounts or reports, whereas the figure of £1,669,000 appears in official documentation as Interims till Dec 2013. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
buster. 4,808 Posted December 2, 2014 Share Posted December 2, 2014 (edited) I am neither confused nor confusing, the mythical £2.72 million quoted by rhabid press organs is covered by one word, unaudited, and the figure appears in no official accounts or reports, whereas the figure of £1,669,000 appears in official documentation as Interims till Dec 2013. Are you saying that the recent Open Offer of up to 19,864,918 New Ordinary Shares was offered using mythical, made-up figures ? Edited December 2, 2014 by buster. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bluedell 5,329 Posted December 2, 2014 Share Posted December 2, 2014 I agree with Bluedell that only some of the money in the bank that we can't currently get our hands on can possibly have come from RR profit. The rest was presumably paid in by us/SD to set up RR. I reckoned it would be us or else it would be shown somewhere in the consolidated accounts as a loan, 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
the gunslinger 3,366 Posted December 2, 2014 Share Posted December 2, 2014 we certainly need to vastly improve our income here in order to get back to the top. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zappa 0 Posted December 2, 2014 Share Posted December 2, 2014 Are you saying that the recent Open Offer of up to 19,864,918 New Ordinary Shares was offered using mythical, made-up figures ? I spotted the £2.7m vs £3m woopsy straight away, so it's good to see it brought up, but would "mythical, made-up figures" really be a surprise? 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.