Uilleam 5,507 Posted August 17, 2016 Share Posted August 17, 2016 They're going to need that cartoon variety expertise if they pull the stunt they're threatening to at this game with the Israeli Champions tonight. And in addition to that if they do then travel over there for the away league expecting a cosy welcome they better get those legal minds into action and grasp that they're putting their empty heads into a life and death situation for a nation that goes way beyond their empty headed babbling. I clean forgot their expertise in International politics and diplomacy, which those who watch may see in full bloom tonight. Who knows? Who can fathom such great minds? Hopefully, they will forfeit the tie, but only after arrests, and skull cracking in Israel. Their devotion to Islamists and sectarian butchers, such as Hamas and Hizbollah is a symptom of their ignorance, and innate anti-semitism. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jhunter 0 Posted August 17, 2016 Share Posted August 17, 2016 And why were his accounts pish? is that meant to be funny? 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
craig 5,199 Posted August 17, 2016 Share Posted August 17, 2016 is that meant to be funny? Explain how the CG accounts were pish given they had a renowned auditor auditing them ? 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jhunter 0 Posted August 17, 2016 Share Posted August 17, 2016 Explain how the CG accounts were pish given they had a renowned auditor auditing them ? http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/13415760.Deloitte_quit_as_Rangers_auditors_over__threats__to_staff/ Deloitte quit as Rangers auditors over 'threats' to staff Former Rangers finance advisors fined £1.2m for market abuse risks http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/former-rangers-finance-advisors-fined-7429156 so what is it you believe, that because a set of accounts get signed off everything is just tickety boo? 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
craig 5,199 Posted August 18, 2016 Share Posted August 18, 2016 (edited) http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/13415760.Deloitte_quit_as_Rangers_auditors_over__threats__to_staff/ http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/former-rangers-finance-advisors-fined-7429156 so what is it you believe, that because a set of accounts get signed off everything is just tickety boo? So let me get this straight..... because Charles Green or one of his sidekicks threatens Deloitte, forcing them to resign as auditors is the same as the current situation ? Nonsense. Grant Thornton haven't resigned so the two situations are completely different. Regardless, lets look at the two articles you used to justify your position that the accounts are "pish"..... The Herald article talks only of the resignation of Deloitte because of threats to their staff. They make no mention whatsoever that the financial statements may be misrepresented. Threats to staff does NOT equate to "cooking the books". The Record article is talking about WH Ireland being suspended. It doesn't say it is related to Rangers but, even if it does, you do realize that as NOMAD they would have absolutely nothing to do with the production of the financial statements ? So I would be really interested to hear how you make the quantum leap that the financial statements are "pish" when WH Ireland, or indeed any other NOMAD, don't actually get involved in the production of the accounts and, therefore, have no significant influence over them. The two articles that you posted above are both enormous red herrings and suggest to me that you haven't quite grasped things. I will give you a clue though - there IS something within the financial statements that could raise suspicion on whether the financials are fairly and accurately presented. Care to take a look at the financials and see if you can find what it is that MIGHT bring the financials into question ? Ohhhh, and thanks for making me give the Herald and Record clicks Edited August 18, 2016 by craig 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jhunter 0 Posted August 18, 2016 Share Posted August 18, 2016 So let me get this straight..... because Charles Green or one of his sidekicks threatens Deloitte, forcing them to resign as auditors is the same as the current situation ? Nonsense. Grant Thornton haven't resigned so the two situations are completely different. Regardless, lets look at the two articles you used to justify your position that the accounts are "pish"..... The Herald article talks only of the resignation of Deloitte because of threats to their staff. They make no mention whatsoever that the financial statements may be misrepresented. Threats to staff does NOT equate to "cooking the books". The Record article is talking about WH Ireland being suspended. It doesn't say it is related to Rangers but, even if it does, you do realize that as NOMAD they would have absolutely nothing to do with the production of the financial statements ? So I would be really interested to hear how you make the quantum leap that the financial statements are "pish" when WH Ireland, or indeed any other NOMAD, don't actually get involved in the production of the accounts and, therefore, have no significant influence over them. The two articles that you posted above are both enormous red herrings and suggest to me that you haven't quite grasped things. I will give you a clue though - there IS something within the financial statements that could raise suspicion on whether the financials are fairly and accurately presented. Care to take a look at the financials and see if you can find what it is that MIGHT bring the financials into question ? Ohhhh, and thanks for making me give the Herald and Record clicks more unfounded garbage in the record it seems http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/business/company-results-forecasts/questions-raised-rangers-retail-ltd-8655038 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
craig 5,199 Posted August 18, 2016 Share Posted August 18, 2016 more unfounded garbage in the record it seems http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/business/company-results-forecasts/questions-raised-rangers-retail-ltd-8655038 Sop making me click on these Record links, I feel dirty You would be surprised at how many companies have their financial statements signed off whilst their share capital numbers are incorrect. It happens fairly frequently surprisingly enough. It CAN happen. The accountant who, if they were happy to give their opinion should have been fine being named if qualified, gave them the quotes talks about the shares being allotted from previous years. However, I think the accountant is wrong to suggest that the accounts shouldn't be approved. I can see why he would believe that to be the case given 50% of the Company COULD be owned by someone else. However, it looked pretty clear to me from the statements made about the shares that having found out that there was an error, the company directors also seem to have determined who the owner of the other 50% of shares is. If they know who that person is and know them to be someone from either Rangers or Sports Direct then, given the remaining directors from both sides were approving the financial statements, then they could probably reasonably know that they would be approved by this other person. What the accountant is doing is ignoring whether or not the directors and auditors are aware of who owns those shares and is immediately assuming that they are owned by an external 3rd party. Given they have signed off on the accounts it would indicate that the mysterious other 100 shares are owned by either a RFC or SDI party, which more than likely allows the Company to sign off on those financial statements. I'm not sure who the accountant is but it seems like they know their stuff. However, it also looks like they have an anti-Rangers bias. Grant Thornton are a well-respected mid-tier audit form and the "disclaimer of opinion" statement that they made in the financial statements is a perfectly acceptable avenue for the auditor to take. It is allowed under GAAP and IFRS guidelines. If it wasn't then Grant Thornton would be expecting to be reprimanded by the governing authority. By providing a "disclaimer of opinion" Grant Thornton have allowed themselves to be re-engaged as auditors but have also not taken responsibility for anything which happens within the accounts (effectively going concern issues over the legal dispute). I've been an accountant for 22 years myself and I also have never seen a disclaimer of opinion. But that doesn't mean it isn't allowed or isn't acceptable - again, it looks like this accountant has an anti-Rangers bias. I wonder if he is looking to pressure Grant Thornton to quit so as to get the business..... The carrot I gave you previously is something that the accountant mentions which MIGHT prove that the accounts aren't accurate - to save you the bother.... it is where he states that Grant Thornton state that they cant tell if the company kept proper books and records. He is right that 3rd party legal dispute is nothing to do with the books and records.... however, he is either failing to recognize or conveniently ignores that the 200 vs 100 share issue allotment IS a part of the books and records - and if those numbers were wrong then Grant Thornton would be well within their rights to make their statement given the error in the shares allotment. It covers their arse in other words. But nothing really to resign over. In my 22 yrs I have seen shares being mis-allotted a number of times and it has never been reason for an auditor to resign their position. He's also wrong, in my humble opinion, where he states "Its also raises the question, how could the directors approve the accounts when the board doesn't agree on the nature of the commercial deals" - he states previously that 3rd party disputes don't affect the books and records. I would contend that the "nature of commercial deals" also doesn't impact on the actual accounting or the veracity of the financial statements as presented. The numbers are the numbers, and the nature of commercial deals doesn't change those. IMHO of course. I do find it somewhat amusing that we often call the Record a rhag, or the rhebel and chastise them for anti-Rangers bias and blatant lies about the Club - but when it suits we will use them as the beacon of honesty and integrity to justify a position we wish to take..... 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrahimHemdani 1 Posted August 18, 2016 Share Posted August 18, 2016 There's not a lot of information contained within them to allow an informed opinion on them, but here are a few comments. Dividends of £2.7m paid but we don't know how much were paid to Rangers, particularly following the comments over the past few days that Ashley has taken too much. Profit before tax has risen from £1.2m to £2.7m but this may be largely due to the accounting treatment of provisions. In the prior year accounts, provisions of £1m were made in respect of "onerous" leases and the contract where it has to purchase stock (from SD) at above net realisable value. It seems that £870K of these provisions have been reversed, rather than used. It seems strange that the auditors were happy for the provisions to be there and for them then to be reversed (if that is indeed the case). However it they weren't then the level of dividends payable would not be at the same level. Is this what the court case is about? Do the Rangers directors feel that the provisions are still required and therefore the dividends should be a lot lower? Have the Rangers directors approved the accounts at the board meeting held 11 days ago? Turnover of the company fell from £4.8m to £4.2m presumably due to the continued fans' boycott, but it's disappointing that it hasn't fallen by more. Shame on you, you know who you are! All fixed assets ("plant & machinery") have been disposed of for some reason. The company has found that it actually ahs £200 of shares issued and not the £100 that they thought that they had. Given that SD seem to take on the company secretarial responsibilities it is yet another cock-up by them. the £100 issued in error are to be cancelled. It does seem strange that the entire profit was paid out in dividends when £869, 988 of that profit was realised from the release of previous provisions. Of course it could be argued that the previous year's profit and dividends were held back by the same amount. There is a difference of exactly £130,000 in the 2014 provision for the "onerous contract" and the reversal of the provision in the 2015 accounts. This amount is shown as liability at Note 8 reference the purchase of stock at higher than its net realisable value for the 2014/15 season. The company appears to be owed £495,098 by "other debtors" and /or has accrued income due to it in that amount; but equally owes £538,780 to "group undertakings" etc. Does anyone no enough about this to know if these amounts offset in any way? Hopefully the tax and social security of £864,756 has been paid! 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
craig 5,199 Posted August 18, 2016 Share Posted August 18, 2016 (edited) It does seem strange that the entire profit was paid out in dividends when £869, 988 of that profit was realised from the release of previous provisions. Of course it could be argued that the previous year's profit and dividends were held back by the same amount. There is a difference of exactly £130,000 in the 2014 provision for the "onerous contract" and the reversal of the provision in the 2015 accounts. This amount is shown as liability at Note 8 reference the purchase of stock at higher than its net realisable value for the 2014/15 season. The company appears to be owed £495,098 by "other debtors" and /or has accrued income due to it in that amount; but equally owes £538,780 to "group undertakings" etc. Does anyone no enough about this to know if these amounts offset in any way? Hopefully the tax and social security of £864,756 has been paid! Regards the other debtors # IIRC from looking at the financials it appeared to me as if that was due from SDI - I think I somehow surmised that from looking at the related party transactions note - but I'm too lazy to go back and look again. Dependent upon which party the receivable and payable is due to you would like to think they would be able to be offset (if to same party) - as you know BH, accounting standards have something known as "separate determination" which means for presentational purposes you cant net off debtors and creditors, even though the practicality is that they WILL be netted off. I noticed the 130k difference - one assumes that this was a sum that couldn't legitimately be written off along with the remainder of the reversal in the onerous contracts i.e. no legal way of challenging it. Was the tax bill the income statement number of balance sheet - payment can depend on which one it is, along with any other deferrals that may be applicable. Regarding the dividends being paid out I don't find it strange at all. Whilst they do appear excessive (indeed, the dividend meant that there was a retained loss for the year) the reality is that knowing Ashley was de facto running the show means he would be looking to bleed every penny he could out of RRL whilst he had/has the chance. As I said previously, it is still a legal distribution given the company still has equity after the dividend distribution. Edited August 18, 2016 by craig 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrahimHemdani 1 Posted August 18, 2016 Share Posted August 18, 2016 I didn't mean it was strange Ashley had taken the dividend, far from it, I meant it was a questionable strategy per se. 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.