Joey Jo Jo Junior Shabadoo
-
Posts
8,508 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
11
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Store
Posts posted by Joey Jo Jo Junior Shabadoo
-
-
,also included was deferred income and accruals to various places which is of course for goods and services not yet received, it has to be declared as a liability for accounting purposes but it is definitely not a debt.
If you are somehow suggesting that goods and services already received somehow, magically, do not need to be paid for in the future, just because you haven't received an invoice yet you are clearly bonkers.
Whether it is 'debt' or a 'liability' is exactly my point. Total liabilities is what Rangers owed out in June 2010. Classifying some as 'debts' and others as 'liabilities' is completely irrelevant to the overall financial state of affairs.
The total debt stood at £27M which included the bank debt of £19M (£1M payable in a year), finance leases £4M and bank O/D and other minor loans of £4M which had fallen £4M from the previous year, the unaudited accounts for 2011 showed a further significant drop but I am not counting them due to being unaudited.
This number is irrelevant. The total is £66 million. Amounts that need to be paid out in the future. Where to or of what form is of absolutely no significance. Do you think the £2.2million figure for trade creditors is irrelevant? Should it be discarded just because it isn't a 'debt'? Or did Rangers owe that money? Of course they did. Just like everything else in the liabilities section.
0 -
Before I begin, do you have the slightest idea what you are talking about? Seriously?
Firstly...you seem upset.
Raging.
It is you who are massaging figures
Again, lifting numbers directly from the accounts is not massaging.
The £38M figure you mention still includes the bank debt of £18M, it is not as you make out another £38M
No it doesn't. Total liabilities per the accounts are £66million, so I actually meant £48million not £38million once you remove £18million for the bank debt. Slip of the calculator.
The other £20M of liabilities is made up of leasing costs which are not leased of thin air but actual assets which have a book value, these assets I assume went back to the lease company,
Word salad.
0 -
I apologise in advance for actually using some knowledge of finance and expect irrelevant (in isolation), cherry picked numbers to be plucked out of the accounts in reply.
The company DID make a very healthy profit over an 18 month period.
The debt WAS reduced to £18.1M
Lolz.
Pity Joey is just doing what he is accusing others of, spinning figures to suit his
argumentagenda, while I am sticking to the facts.Actually no, that's the opposite of what I'm doing. I am doing zero spinning. Numbers directly out of the accounts. In a formula. Simple as that.
The debt WAS reduced to £18.1M
No it fucking wasn't! How many times? The Bank Debt was reduced to £18million. Are you suggesting that the other £38million of debts didn't need paid?
And as a wee aside I've just noticed that even the £18million figure for bank debt in the 2010 accounts has been massaged for the hard of thinking. It is actually £22.695million. £18million due after a year, £1million due within a year and a bank overdraft of £3.695million. So even your £18million bank debt comfort blanket is inaccurate to the tune of 26%.
0 -
2 and a half years and over 6,000 pages in and we still have fantasists claiming that Rangers were in a decent financial state before Craig Whyte's takeover for £1 (Yes, £1!). Throughout this thread these claims have been debunked time and time again yet the usual suspects keep coming back with the exact same 'evidence' to 'prove' that they are correct. Youngsy's magical £18million bank debt being comparable to £53million total liabilities being a favourite of mine, trotted out repeatedly even though he has been told his comparison is utter bollocks again and again.
Anyway, to show how brilliant a state Ranger's accounts (© Tedi) were in to June 2010 I have calculated Altman's Z'-score.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Altman_Z-score#Z-score_estimated_for_private_firms
To sum up it is a test on the likelihood of bankruptcy within the next two years. You put figures from the accounts into a formula and depending on the result you can decide if a company is going tits up or not. I got taught this in advanced finance so it isn't some pie in the sky theory, it is derived through genuine statistically based analysis and used in the finance industry.
Having done the calculation Ranger's score at 30th June 2010 was 0.91. Anything below 1.23 is a firm in distress, between 1.23 and 2.9 is a grey area, and above 2.9 the company is safe. So accordingly Rangers were a basket case before Craig Whyte took over.
I apologise in advance for actually using some knowledge of finance and expect irrelevant (in isolation), cherry picked numbers to be plucked out of the accounts in reply.
0 -
Got Wade in play at 18/1. Stuck a whole £2 on it and cashed out at £30. Nice.
0 -
Incredible standard. Darts these days:
0 -
Mrs. Simpson claims that she forgot that bottle of...
delicious...
bourbon...
Brownest of the brown liquors...
so tempting...
What's that? You want me to drink you?
0 -
There's only one word for this...
0 -
Columbo is so good, I'd eat his fart.
0 -
-
-
-
Quality line up at Archie's tomorrow. Not been for ages. Looking forward to it.
0 -
-
Having had a recent minor piece of surgery I have been forced to sleep on my right side to avoid the stitches. Needles to say I have woken up every morning since with a massive Pat Bonner. It is like being a teenager again.
0 -
Loving this. Awesome production. Sounds like he's hired in an orchestra.
0 -
Agreed. The no campaign must be wondering what the f**k is going on. They can't shake us despite the biggest coordinated campaign of propaganda, shite and state endorsed bollocks since probably the second world war.
Where do they go from here? When you've been promised a fate worse than death how can you then (and with a nod to Blackadder) promise Scotland a fate worse than a fate worse than death?
Looks like we're all off to Heidelburg to teach Home Economics.
0 -
Excellent news, but...
0 -
Honourable mention to Dmitri From Paris for dropping this one in:
0 -
Recently back from 10 days on the White Isle and heard some awesome stuff, but my number one moment was when a couple of boys finished their set at the Ibiza Jet Pool with:
The bit at 5:12 makes me moist.
0 -
My new job is so boring that i have started collecting stamps from the envelopes I have to check. I have a small collection of about 8 unique stamps. Sorry to say I have no doublers, so any collectors are out of luck.
If it is boring try to make a game of it. For example see how many stamps you can get in an hour. Then try and beat that record.
0 -
Less than 20 wickets in the first 4 days at Galle between Sri Lanka and Pakistan. Stick on draw, obviously.
0 -
Anyone else think that some of the BBC's stories are starting to look like a teenage girl's MySpace page? Or whatever they use these days. Bebo?
Here's an example: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/special/2014/newsspec_8529/index.html
It's an utterly horrific mess
It looks horrible so I didn't bother reading. I assume 'Helmand's Golden Age' is an article about the development of jar-based mayonnaise, so it was probably a pile of shite anyway.
0 -
I just had venison for only the third time in my life. It gets better everytime.
Was it dear?
0
Big Rangers Administration/Liquidation Thread - All chat here!
in Celtic v Rangers, Rangers v Celtic
Posted
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?