.jpeg.1bf43a3fc7d1c4d42e75b5a1e5b4992c.jpeg)
aDONisSheep
-
Posts
1,200 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
2
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Store
Posts posted by aDONisSheep
-
-
You haven't answered the question. Under what circumstances is it in any way correct to use an £18million bank loan due after a year figure from the 2010 accounts as a comparator to a £56million total liability at liquidation?
Here's youngsy doing it a few days ago:
Hemin, can you not read
Line one, and I quote "Oh I've always thought that using selective data from one point in time was laughable."I'm not sure what your argument with me is?
Yours
aDONis
0 -
I also stated in an earlier post that the debt had been reduced by £4M which it had.
The point of this all being that in the 18 months prior to CW taking over, Rangers had turned a genuine profit which had resulted in a genuine debt reduction, which showed that the club could with prudence be part of a viable business.
Everything else you introduced was designed to deflect away from this.
The problem you've got Tedi, is that in order to achieve those financial results, DeadRangers had won the league, played in the CL group stages, won the league cup and sold Barry Ferguson.
Now most of that was achievable every year for Dead Rangers (or at least second and runners up positions if not winning).
The one that wasn't really deliverable every year was CL group stages, and that's what made the big difference.
Contrast 2009/10 to 2008/09. In 2008/09 DeadRangers won the league, won the Scottish Cup, got to the League Cup Final and had higher average attendances (so far so good), but didn't qualify for the CL.
Now look at the financial performance. Turnover was down by £16.6m (£56.3m v £39.7m) and profit was down by £16.9m (£4.2m v -£12.7m).
As I said before DeadRangers were hooked on CL monies and to a lesser extent Europa League. It was such a binary item that they couldn't absorb the shock of not qualifying.
Then along came Fat Sally and ............... the rest is history.
Yours
aDONis
0 -
Can I join in on the accounting discussion.
I'd have thought that season ticket money would be accrued income. That is, money received for services to be provided in the following reporting period.
I would understand deferred income to be monies received, such as a government grant, towards an asset. In the same way as the expense of purchase is spread over its lifetime as depreciation, the grant towards it has to be spread over the same lifetime. The element of the grant still to be used up would be the deferred income.
It is confusing. But accruals occur before payment or receipt and deferrals occur after payment or receipt (always remember that you're viewing things as the reporting company).
For example you accrue for goods you've used, but haven't received an invoice or paid for. You'd defer items for which you've paid, but won't use till later.
Yours
aDONis
Next up in aDONis' thrilling thread posts. Replacement cost v value in use zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz!
0 -
And while you are thankfully here and obviously an expert can we maybe go back to the initial point? I picked up on the fact that some were using an £18million bank debt figure in 2010 and comparing it to a £53 million liability figure at the time of admin. The claim was Craig Whyte had added a fortune to the debt during his time in charge. I called this out as pish as they weren't comparing like with like. Would you agree? Also they were using this £18million figure to represent the total amount Rangers owed. Would you also agree they were not correct to do so?
Oh I've always thought that using selective data from one point in time was laughable.
I understand Tedi's thrust, being that the 2010 numbers were on the face of it better than 2009. The only problem being that it was too little, too late. DeadRangers had run out of road. Their liquidity was pyss poor, they had the big tax case. I also think they had lost the little tax case (£2.6m IIRC and couldn't pay that).
Their quick ratio was miles below 1.0
Essentially they were completely dependent on CL money (and the associated risks of not qualifying for the group stages).
Murray needed out, and I'm pretty sure Nookie thought he could take a chance, scrape by with ticketus, player sales and CL money, or if worst came to worst, do a quick admin switcheroo.
It was a high risk strategy that went horribly wrong.
Yours
aDONis
Still, you've got to laugh
0 -
Sorry Tedi, but you mentioned accruals and that is what I defined.
With regard to Deferred Income you could really do with some understanding of accounting before you start copy and pasting. Not that the definition is incorrect, but the meaning behind it is all important here.
Using the 2010 accounts as an example, deferred income and accruals are £16,833k (I'm using the numbers for within a year but the same reasoning applies to the over a year stuff as well). Let's put £1.833million of that down to accruals (Goods Received Not Invoiced). First of all you have to admit this is money that Rangers owed? Because this is the sort of thing you are refuting.
That leaves £15million deferred income which we shall assume is ST sales. Agreed?
Basically this means Rangers have received £15million for goods and services that they haven't supplied yet. Therefore they have an obligation to provide these goods and services. This means they have an obligation to pay the staff, pay the stewards, pay the ground expenses, pay the police, etc in order to provide the good/service that they have already been paid for. Now give me another word for an obligation to pay. I'll give you two guesses.
Or in more simple terms, they've been given £15million and provided nowt in return. Therefore at the 30th June they owe the supporters the £15million that they have received. Now that, again, is money that Rangers owe.
Same goes for grants: Rangers received cash and are obliged to pay it out at a later date, therefore they have an actual cash liability. It isn't some made up accounting trick.
Have I won at internet yet?
I'm afraid that's not quite true (and both of you are doing my nut-in with this 'amateur accountants open night') Yes, I AM upset
.The simple way of looking at the transaction is this.
Punter pays his season ticket cash;
This creates a balance sheet ONLY entry.
Dr Bank (asset)
Cr Deferred Revenue(liability)
The obligation this creates is NOT to pay for players wages etc (the club could be completely amateur and have no payments to make). The obligation is for the company to allow the punter to watch a (future) game or games.
When the game is performed, then the following transaction takes place.
Dr Deferred Revenue (reducing liability)
Cr Revenue (P&L income)
Notice not one of these items relates to 'paying players etc'.
Paying players wages would have the following transaction;
Cr Bank (reducing cash on balance sheet)
Dr Players wages (P&L expense)
I hope this helps.
Yours
aDONis
P.S. none of this stops the fact that DeadRangers accounts were a mess before Nookie appeared. Some of the ratios would be shocking, particularly quick ratio/acid test (with or without the Deferred Revenue in the equation).
0 -
Nooooooo! Run Nookie, RUN!
He's a national treasure.
NookieRangers made a profit! NookieRangers made a profit!
Then they died
Yours, free the Motherwell one!
aDONis
0 -
Upset?..I was mocking you for making stuff up in a post the QC would be proud of.
You still seem....... upset.
But if it helps, "Oh you cut me, you cut me deep"
Yours
aDONis
0 -
No that is not what I said at all, making things up and adding smilies may make you popular with the QC though, you have much in common.
You seem upset.....
Surely you're not suggesting that there needs to be context and not just facts..
Of course you're not, that would undermine your argument.
Remember DeadRangers made a profit in 2010 and 2011, what could possibly go wrong.
Yours
aDONis
P.S I like smilies!
0 -
It never gets old.Pity Joey is just doing what he is accusing others of, spinning figures to suit his
argumentagenda, while I am sticking to the facts.The company DID make a very healthy profit over an 18 month period.
The debt WAS reduced to £18.1M
The
clubclumpany could not find a buyer due to to the £100M + Tax bill (other liabilities) hanging over its head, this Tax bill turned out to be bollix (yeah I know appeal no 95 is still under way)You must love Nookie Whyte. Under his tenure, DeadRangers made a healthy profit and had no debt. ERM... Fact as you would say.
Then NewRangers under Charlie Chuckles also made a 'healthy profit' and not only did they have no 'debt' they had a stack of cash in the bank. ERM.... fact.
You must get a financial boner at the mere mention of his name!
Yours only stating the facts.
aDONis
P.S. fixed your club v company confusion
0 -
What questions were asked? When are we getting an orange top? Can we sign Novo?
Craig Whyte was swept up the marble staircase on a wave of love from the Rangers fans in an display of mindless deference that did nothing to aid their cause. And how did the fans respond when confronted with evidence of his character from the BBC? "Biased Bigoted Corrupt", "SINK US AND WE'LL SINK YOU".The administrators making only minimal cuts and savings was barely questioned, if not actively encouraged.Charles Green was lapped up after he pushed a few buttons and performed a couple of tricks. You seem to think it's news that these guys are bunch of crooks?
Maybe the if the fans had behaved more sensibly, and they definitely could have, it wouldn't have a blind bit of difference. I'll guess we'll never know, but it certainly couldn't have made things any worse.
In fairness, I'm pretty sure they asked " what school did you go to" as well.
0 -
What the fucking hell is Oo my go, oh my go?
There is nothing any football support could have done against a criminal conspiracy such as this.Yours
Youngsy.
Oh you Sevconians, how soon you ahem....
make up some revisionist pyshforget, don't you even remember the "We deserve better" stuff about the old club.Ra-DeadRangers fans were threatening Lloyds way back in 2009, a long time before Nookie even appeared.
How to win friends and influence people
Remember Sevconians when in doubt, don't ask questions, don't attempt anything positive, just BOYCOTT!
Yours
aDONis
0 -
Oo my go, my go!
Not trying to orchestrate boycotts against your primary bankers.
This is easy
Yours
aDONis
0 -
Interesting theories, but of course Sir Minty Moonbeams himself has said he didn't have to do the deal.
In fact he said it twice in his duped statement (stop laughing).
Murray "But if we'd known of the Ticketus thing, we'd not have done the deal."
Murray "And if the information had been available to me at the time I wouldn't have done it[the deal]. I did it in good faith.
So many liars at the DeadRangers, who to believe
It's a mystery, wrapped in a riddle, inside an enigma.
AJ before the event = we love Lloyds
AJ after the event = It was Lloyds what did make us do it.
Davros after the event = I wasn't forced into it, I could have said no, but I was duped.
Personally, I think there is an element of truth to all of it (but also a lot of erse covering). Ultimately, Davros, AJ, Martin Bain et al ran the club poorly and left it badly exposed, and very weak.
Then Nookie came in, and the rest is.......... a right bloody good laugh
Yours
aDONis
0 -
Big bad Lloyds did it and ran away. Of course they weren't always so big and bad till there needed to be a scapegoat.
Alistair Johnston Feb 18 2010;
"I have to tell the supporters we have a real problem on our hands without Lloyds TSB,"
"The bank is trying to support our initiatives without compromising Walter Smith and Ally McCoist in their job of trying to field a competitive team for the rest of the season. The board, meanwhile, understands Lloyds need to be replaced.
"Going on as we are at the moment isn't desirable if we are to retain control over the club's destiny and avoid affecting the potential for future success.
"In the meantime, everyone has to work harder and work smarter and that's what Walter has done in the dressing room and Martin Bain, our chief executive has done in the boardroom."
Johnston insists Lloyd are just a stop-gap measure and that if they can secure UEFA Champions League football next season then they might be able to regain control of their finances.
"In no way would I criticise the fans, who are entitled to voice their opinions,"
"But as far as our relationship with Lloyds goes, it is working. We need them at this point in time.
"Murray (International Holdings) are not going to put any more money into the club, so we need the bank. They have been left holding the baby after the economic crisis hit Murray. The bank are our stop-gap measure.
"Clearly, getting into the Champions League again would be of significant benefit."
It seems the shyt would have hit the fan a lot earlier had it not been for the benign Lloyds. OldGers fans should be thanking them for giving them another year.
But, but, but, but, OldRangers were profit-making! OLDRANGERS WERE PROFIT-MAKING! It's all someone elses fault!
Yours
aDONis
0 -
Yes and what's more, I am 100% correct.
Hemin, you didn't even misquote me correctly, you could at least have left some dots at the end ..........
Yours
aDONis
0 -
Dreary me, selective reading is obviously yours.
DM was forced to sell, he had no choice in it, only an idiot or a fraudster would buy a business with a £100M tax case hanging over it, pity you did not have a spare pound going at the time.
Deary me. You're the one arguing that DeadRangers were a profitable [going] concern and not a basket-case (perish the thought). Yet you're now saying only an "idiot or a fraudster" would invest.
You're all over the place.
I am coming round to your point of view that DeadRangers were not a basket-case. I think the term cluster-fvck is probably better.
Yours
aDONis
0 -
All the clichés and deflection in the world will not change the fact that prior to CW taking over, Rangers were turning a profit.
Deary me, is reading not your strong suit.
If you want a cliche how about "One swallow does not make a summer". DeadRangers had made profits in the past as well, just not as much as they had made losses by a mere £135.8m.
Sir Minty wanted to sell, but for some reason there didn't seem to be many takers for a "profit" making busienss (and you can probably thank the sale of Barry Ferguson for "profit" part of that statement). Now why was there no crush of investors?
Yours
aDONis
0 -
What point are you trying to make here?
I have already said that when Murray was running the show the club was running at a loss, your 5 year thing is pathetic.
Does not matter how much you twist it, prior to CW taking offer, Rangers were a profitable business, not a basket case.
Not my five year thing, it's straight from DeadRangers accounts
Did you not read it? Cumulative losses of £135.8m would suggest they were a bit of a basket-case and not really that profitable a business.
DeadRangers had a high risk strategy that had them hooked on European Income (predominantly CL monies).
Now I do have some sympathy with your argument that DeadRangers could have been profitable (on an ongoing basis). However we all know that "[you] deserved better" (stop laughing at the back).
DeadRangers were I'm afraid, just a couple of bad euro-results away from toppling over.
Yours
aDONis
0 -
It was the interim results £13.1M, dipped to £9M the following year
http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport/football/rangers-half-year-figures-reveal-dip-1099104
Point being that basket cases and profit are not really words you associate together.
Except of course those were only interim statements and not their profits at all.
If you want to see the profits, then you should use the proper source data. Here try these;
http://www.isdx.com/infostore/Company-Accounts/RangersFootball/rangers2010.pdf
Try page 14 for the P&L and 15 for the cumulative P&L.
They were also kind enough to give a five year summary on page 35, and guess what........ Net losses of £8m. Go figure?
Yours
aDONis
0 -
Long before but not immediately before CW`s arrival, in fact they announced a £13.1M retained profit in 2010, think you forgot to add that part in with all the revisionism flying around.
No they didn't.
According to the accounts they made a profit of £4.2m in 2010 or do you mean the 2010/11 period.
Even if you take Operating Profit (PBIT) it was only £5.1m.
Yours
aDONis
Update; The period from Jul 2010 to Jun 2011 were Nookie's first (and only) set of accounts. They had a profit of £76k (source = STV News).
In fairness Nookie did make a statement that OldRangers was "no longer reliant on bank funding." How did that pan out
0 -
Who are these people? I think we should be told (2009 edition)
."The Rangers Supporters Assembly, Rangers Worldwide Alliance, Rangers Supporters Trust and Rangers Supporters Association issued a joint statement in which they also urged Sir David Murray to sell his majority shareholding in the club as quickly as possible."
Steatment read "Rangers fans have endured unnecessary and damaging uncertainty over the future of the club and it is now time for this to be resolved. The current situation cannot continue – it is imperative that a change in ownership is completed now."
They seemed........ upset?
0 -
A fraud that could not, and probably would not, have been committed were it not for my aforementioned points.
So as much as you may wish to ignore them, they remain entirely relevant.
Indeed, under Sir Minty of the Moonbeam, OldRangers had racked up losses of £135,777k (per the accounts to 30 Jun 2010), yip, you read that right, that's cumulative losses of nearly £136m during the glory days.... (And for the avoidance of doubt, that is before the disputed tax liabilities).
Sir Minty of the Moonbeam was so desperate to get out, that he ignored the due diligence findings of his own board.
Craig Whyte was indeed a
heroshyster, Sir Minty knew it, but couldn't give a shyt, his need to cauterize the cyst that was OldRangers and to get the hell away was just too great.Every time I think about it, it brings a smile to my face.
Yours
aDONis
0 -
Here he is! Hiding in a box, kindly supplied by Willie Miller by the looks of it!
Rumour has it, he used to hang around with an acquaintance called Tiger Tim, 'nuff said!
Yours
aDONis
0 -
march on Hampden
threaten a clown
picket the BBC
threaten to burn down Starks Park
that sort of stuff?
May I add;
Throw a hissy-fit over a T-shirt
Boycott something for no apparent reason (probably Utd)
Cheer a spiv
Boo a spiv
Fawn over an ex-pat criminal spiv
Shout sporting continuity and ASA a lot! (Whilst not really believing it, which is why item one is so funny)
Whatever the Sevconians do you can be sure it won't be positive.
Yours
aDONis
0
Line one, and I quote "Oh I've always thought that using selective data from one point in time was laughable."
There is nothing any football support could have done against a criminal conspiracy such as this.
Big Rangers Administration/Liquidation Thread - All chat here!
in Celtic v Rangers, Rangers v Celtic
Posted
Well if he did (and of course Murray says otherwise), it's because Murray had loaded the gun, put it in Muir's hand, painted a target on his face and shouted 'Muir you're a knvt!" repeatedly.
There were 135,777k reasons why it made sense for the bank to get out, Murray hadn't followed through on his promises of 2000 or 2004 (and probably others).
DeadRangers should never have been so financially weak. But they were, and it was because of Murray, not Lloyds.
Yours
aDONis