accs due within next 10 days GM end Nov.

[Uilleam 5,507]

No I didn’t link their fine to our accounts,I merely stated a fact and our accounts are due.

I will say though that their new masters Baldwins will be more searching about unfulfulled promises of euro income investment and the like,I mean decent auditors would be asking for guarantees not pie in the sky musings.

 

Be interesting to see the severity of the going concern warning this time.

 

If the accountants were fined for incompetence, and if this action is relevant to Rangers, as you must believe it is or you would not have mentioned it, then may we safely ignore their assessments, and prognostications, whether positive or negative?

[union 0]

If the accountants were fined for incompetence, and if this action is relevant to Rangers, as you must believe it is or you would not have mentioned it, then may we safely ignore their assessments, and prognostications, whether positive or negative?

 

You are at liberty to ignore anything you like,although I doubt Baldwins have ignored last years farago.

[Uilleam 5,507]

You are at liberty to ignore anything you like,although I doubt Baldwins have ignored last years farago.

 

So, do we trust the auditors or not?

[the gunslinger 3,366]

This threads fun

 

 

[Bluedell 5,356]

No I didn’t link their fine to our accounts,I merely stated a fact and our accounts are due.

.

 

"Be interesting to see the accounts aspecially since CD were fined £45k for incompetence."

 

So why use the word "aspecially" (sic)? That's linking the two...or did you forget what you wrote?

[union 0]

"Be interesting to see the accounts aspecially since CD were fined £45k for incompetence."

 

So why use the word "aspecially" (sic)? That's linking the two...or did you forget what you wrote?

 

Bend it as much as you like your prerogative,the accs will hopefully tell the story without speculative income.

[calscot 0]

Bend it as much as you like your prerogative,the accs will hopefully tell the story without speculative income.

 

Bend what? Maybe you need to start again and write more carefully and precisely what you mean as you don't seem to be making any sense to me.

 

I was of the impression that a large proportion of any business income is speculative, I don't think you can have a business plan without it. I thought it was called a "forecast". The accounts will show the balance sheet which will not contain any income that was not realised so it's difficult to know what you are worried about.

[Uilleam 5,507]

I am at, ahem, a loss, with this thread.

Perhaps, like the thread auteur, I should listen to the jungle drums.

[union 0]

Bend what? Maybe you need to start again and write more carefully and precisely what you mean as you don't seem to be making any sense to me.

 

I was of the impression that a large proportion of any business income is speculative, I don't think you can have a business plan without it. I thought it was called a "forecast". The accounts will show the balance sheet which will not contain any income that was not realised so it's difficult to know what you are worried about.

 

Accs should never be speculative,they are and should be based on fact that is why they are allegedly audited.

[Big Jaws 570]

Bend what? Maybe you need to start again and write more carefully and precisely what you mean as you don't seem to be making any sense to me.

 

I was of the impression that a large proportion of any business income is speculative, I don't think you can have a business plan without it. I thought it was called a "forecast". The accounts will show the balance sheet which will not contain any income that was not realised so it's difficult to know what you are worried about.

 

I have come to the conclusion that the threads OP is completely incoherent as its tittle points to the Rangers accounts being due within the next 10 days with the body text linking the company overseeing the audit to some nefarious behaviours where they were fined 5 years ago due to a lack of expertise, that both they themselves and the ICAS were aware of, in a specific sector (insurance).

 

I was prepared to cut the OP some slack as every poster has their own posting style. I wasn't quite sure what the poster might suspect and so I thought it prudent to ask only to be met with evasive reply. What follows next is quite remarkable the OP then distances them-self from their own inferences by saying that they only posted two facts and that they had not linked the two when it is absolutely clear that they had. The thread records this in the very first post.

 

I don't think I've encountered a poster whom is quite as mendacious nor as obstreperous as this poster. Thats saying something as I've been posting on BBS/BBL's and forums such as SA for over 20 odd years. In all that time I've never called for a poster to be R/O'd but this one for me is in a very special minority of one.