Big Rangers Administration/Liquidation Thread - All chat here!

[kildog]

Surely when Craig Whyte gets sent down the whole of the BRALT and indeed Scottish football should be united in celebration.

Your old club will still be dead and Mike Ashley will still have the new one you support by the balls.

I'll get the party poppers in. You can buy the jelly and ice cream.

[youngsy]

Oh I had my doubts about Whyte, I was optimistic and certainly not that concerned about the short term future of the club, my concerns were more long term ones connected to the tax case.

Every Rangers fan was concerned about the EBT case Tedi but when he first took over Whyte was welcomed by the vast majority of Rangers fans.

[AberdeenBud]

Surely when Craig Whyte gets sent down the whole of the BRALT and indeed Scottish football should be united in celebration.

Anytime the law catches up with thieving shysters and con men is a good day imo.

And if we're lucky we might even get something close to the truth eventually.

[Ken Fitlike]

Anytime the law catches up with thieving shysters and con men is a good day imo.

And if we're lucky we might even get something close to the truth eventually.

I think that is the long shot of the day!

there will be dozens of versions of 'the truth'

most of them not really true

[Joey Jo Jo Junior Shabadoo]

You cannot even read what is front of you.

Deferred income (also known as deferred revenue, unearned revenue, or unearned income) is, in accrual accounting, money received for goods or services which have not yet been delivered. According to the revenue recognition principle, it is recorded as a liability until delivery is made, at which time it is converted into revenue.

From the accounts: Total Accruals and other deferred income including deferred income from capital Grants £32.643M

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?

[aDONisSheep]

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

[williemillersmoustache]

As someone else mentioned, faced with the opportunity to reduce any sentence, Whyte would sellout his granny. Be careful what you wish for bears.

[Hipster Dufus]

As someone else mentioned, faced with the opportunity to reduce any sentence, Whyte would sellout his granny. Be careful what you wish for bears.

Given the omnishambles / fustercluck of the state of the Clumpany, it is hard to imagine what they do wish for.

A DeLorean to get back to the pre-EBT days?

[Ross.]

Given the omnishambles / fustercluck of the state of the Clumpany, it is hard to imagine what they do wish for.

A DeLorean to get back to the pre-EBT days?

Given the DeLorean and one journey in it, they would likely head for 1967 to try and prevent that from happening.

[Henrik's tongue]

Karma it catches up with everyone in the end.

Including Rangers

[Highlandmagyar]

How far this, and to whom this all leads is fascinating. Hopefully certain people within Scottish football authorities are dragged in. Interesting times ahead.

[Ross.]

As someone else mentioned, faced with the opportunity to reduce any sentence, Whyte would sellout his granny. Be careful what you wish for bears.

Exactly how I see it right now. Whyte knows where all the bodies are buried in this one.

[ribzanelli]

Given the mental gymnastics performed by the bears to separate club from company you would think they of all people would be able to understand that it is a perfectly reasonable position to both dislike Craig Whyte for the financial suffering he caused to innocent creditors and simultaneously love him for the pain that he has caused Rangers fans.

[aDONisSheep]

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).

Edited November 20, 2014 by aDONisSheep

[scottxs]

Never!

Long live Sir Craig of Whyte!

when does he get his rightful place on the hall of fame in Hamden ?

[scottxs]

Just like you'll be able to provide proof of where Ken said you did...

Vicky picks up where he left off...

still hasn't answered my question. I even gave the idiot an apology but still he deflects.

[dave.j]

Tedi getting lessons in accountancy. A great day on the BRALT.

[AberdeenBud]

I actually think the BRALT has been pretty good over the last week or so. I thought we might be winding down with Ashley on the scene but looks like this is going to run and run.

The Big Thread must stay open, that's the bottom line!

[GreenockRover]

So...... The Binman (Whyte) has been cited to appear eh?

NOW, perhaps, we'll see the extent of Minty's involvement or otherwise.

We should hopefully see if his culpability ran to 'just' abusing his Companys' commercial loans facility to fund RFC's wet dreams or potentially went further when the banking collapse exposed his position to the extent that he got involved with a known (in the fund venture circles) shark to get the toxic debt off his hands.

Sing Craigy sing....

[Joey Jo Jo Junior Shabadoo]

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 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).

You are just talking about the basic accounting entries there. I'm talking about the theoretical basis of including deferred income in the accounts at all. Basically the actual deferred income transaction doesn't create a liability that ticks all the boxes per the definition of a liability. By talking about the obligation to produce the good or service you therefore have the conditions for a liability per the Conceptual Framework. So there, amateur.

ETA: Apologies, that makes no sense as I didn't read your post properly. I've just repeated what you said. But my point was in order to embellish the point and make it more understandable is that in order to produce the good or service then they will have to pay the players, pay for the ground etc. so therefore there will be actual future outgoings which are represented in the liability - it isn't just a magic accounting figure like Tedi was entailing.

Edited November 20, 2014 by Joey Jo Jo Junior Shabadoo