bennett Posted November 1, 2015 Share Posted November 1, 2015 Nacho knows the truth . Ffs, posts like that tend to upset the green n grey yins. -2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dunning1874 Posted November 1, 2015 Share Posted November 1, 2015 Can we wrap this pish please? This thread was meant to be a discussion of the present financial situation because the BRALT has long ceased to be about reasonable discussion and speculation about the financial situation, but despite sugna's best efforts it's now turning into another BRALT. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bennett Posted November 1, 2015 Share Posted November 1, 2015 Sugna is only repeating what he's read on blogs, if he has something decent to say... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Njord Posted November 1, 2015 Share Posted November 1, 2015 provide the link to this scots law and then we will talk, you cant do this as it doesnt exist, plus line after line of c&p'd shite from führer führer I posted it here http://www.pieandbovril.com/forum/index.php/topic/167655-big-rangers-administrationliquidation-thread-all-chat-here/ Always happy to help 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sugna Posted November 1, 2015 Author Share Posted November 1, 2015 Sugna is only repeating what he's read on blogs, if he has something decent to say... I know you won't believe this, so I won't be disappointed - but it was a post of yours that first made me aware of the Phil guy's blog! ;-) Some of his stuff seems to be ahead of the curve, but his writing style grates too much for me to read him regularly. I mean, buy a paragraph-splicer, man! The broad-brush approach to finances interests me - I've never seen anything quite so anomalous in my years of following various Scottish sports, and the social aspects of the continued RFC struggle are highly intriguing. My estimates, independently of what bloggers might say, have been pretty close to how the numbers have played out: everyone has the facts available to work out financial prospects and options, and these are Big News; yet they're seldom reported as such. Whatever the more rabid on both sides like to think, cash-at-bank has consistently hit zero exactly when trend would tend to indicate; and that's not peculiar to Rangers, nor are they immune from it. That's when loans have been taken over the last couple of years. In the current circumstances, ST money would cover the monthly deficit to around February, if provision to repay Ashley didn't have to be made; or to around now, if Ashley has managed to ring-fence what he's owed. The sums are simple, the sources of finance are simple, and both of these have already been set out in this thread. Loans from about now (or Feb, Ashley willing) were absolutely foreseeable and predictable. No spin required from either camp, just some arithmetic. Now, to supplement the arithmetic, there has been some fairly obvious spin in club statements, linking non-listing (repeatedly promised, and months ago) to recent events "outwith the board's control": but which board wouldn't have tried to blur such lines? I think that sort of white lie is perfectly understandable. Loans in future being convertible is more tenuous, and IMHO should have been roughly quantified, rather than implying that convertible loans are unbounded: they aren't, even in principle, without significant events occurring. Best practice is to assume the status quo, or specify the alternative circumstances. The most interesting thing recently has been the loans-required timing hitting the "Ashley objects" date: Ashley appears to have been very patient and calculating in all of this, and now seem to be applying subtle pressure at a critical time. It makes King's recent outburst more understandable - but not really any wiser, unless he's preparing a scapegoat. As for the other potential scapegoats and their criminal proceedings, my mind boggles, and I would have no idea how to factor that into the finances. So I'm not even going to try. That aspect is as intractable as the "zero cash" point is predictable. Short term, directors' loans have been promised to keep the lights on; the accounts may say something more indicative about the medium term. (Quick suggestion: all fighting in BRALT, leaving this thread for civilized debate?) 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bennett Posted November 1, 2015 Share Posted November 1, 2015 Aye, I'll be sure to read that saga later mate. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Njord Posted November 1, 2015 Share Posted November 1, 2015 Aye, I'll be sure to read that saga later mate. Thought you like Beowulf? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bennett Posted November 1, 2015 Share Posted November 1, 2015 Waiting for season four of Vikings tbh but don't want to go too off topic.... So I reckon we'll get some loans early next year and rumble on, maybe making the play offs. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kildog Posted November 1, 2015 Share Posted November 1, 2015 Nacho knows the truth . It's fucking mental! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bambino7 Posted November 2, 2015 Share Posted November 2, 2015 Ashley wants the Lying King jailed ???? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SUPERSOUTH Posted November 2, 2015 Share Posted November 2, 2015 Tick tock tick tock not long now.... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bennett Posted November 2, 2015 Share Posted November 2, 2015 How long has Philip given us now? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sugna Posted November 4, 2015 Author Share Posted November 4, 2015 Following on from some recent events, here's an update on the broad-brush position, as I understand it. (It was suggested to me in another context that "an Ashley loan" might be a useful way of viewing things. In the notes below, 1AL = £5m. I have said before that I don't think claiming to know details to several significant digits serves much purposes, so this is "one stage broader-brush" than I was using previously.) 1. Accounts published Predicted shortfall of 0.5AL this season. Going concern statement by board appears to indicate "delight" that funding is now secured. Auditors emphasis of matter on the going concern basis of the accounts, defers to directors' statement. That's similar to previous years, except for the "delight" part. I don't know who that's supposed to convince, but it probably doesn't matter too much. The auditors do not, of course, claim to have satisfied themselves that funds are in place or will definitely be provided when available: they just say that the basis is justified by the board through their statement. So again, on getting through the next year, you pays your money and you takes your choice. The 0.5AL predicted shortfall is the average of the £2-3m shortfall range that appeared in a press article recently. It would be foolish to believe the figure in that article wasn't provided by the board (directly or indirectly). From the recent statement about director-supplied funding, the at-bank and burn-rate positions are reasonably clear: there is about 1AL prior to taking additional loans around now, and the burn-rate in excess of non-ST, non-loan, non-rights issue (etc.) income is very close to 1AL/4 months. Debt before new loans is about 2AL. Projected debt at start of 2016 STs sales period is around 4AL. 2. BTC appeal in favour of HMRC Seems like a big deal to many on both sides; but there is no effect that I can see on Rangers finances. 3. EBT fine tribunal Apparently due to report soon. Although this will no doubt cause much BRALT frothing, the total exposure is a mere 0.08AL. No significant effect on finances and equivalent to under 2 weeks of burn rate. Summary Although there has been a lot of gossip and ammo for points-scoring, I don't think that recent events have materially affected the financial position of Rangers, or even what we know about that position. They are 2AL in debt and need to take that to about 4AL to get through to ST sales in 2016. The predicted shortfall for the current season is clearly very far out. I don't know why that figure has been given, but it will certainly be revised as it is palpably out by miles. Perhaps that increase in shortfall will be spun to be linked to some events that have yet to unfold, but as of today, the number given is so far out as to "not even be wrong", and is easily checked from the available data. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
strichener Posted November 4, 2015 Share Posted November 4, 2015 Following on from some recent events, here's an update on the broad-brush position, as I understand it. (It was suggested to me in another context that "an Ashley loan" might be a useful way of viewing things. In the notes below, 1AL = £5m. I have said before that I don't think claiming to know details to several significant digits serves much purposes, so this is "one stage broader-brush" than I was using previously.) 1. Accounts published Predicted shortfall of 0.5AL this season. Going concern statement by board appears to indicate "delight" that funding is now secured. Auditors emphasis of matter on the going concern basis of the accounts, defers to directors' statement. That's similar to previous years, except for the "delight" part. I don't know who that's supposed to convince, but it probably doesn't matter too much. The auditors do not, of course, claim to have satisfied themselves that funds are in place or will definitely be provided when available: they just say that the basis is justified by the board through their statement. So again, on getting through the next year, you pays your money and you takes your choice. The 0.5AL predicted shortfall is the average of the £2-3m shortfall range that appeared in a press article recently. It would be foolish to believe the figure in that article wasn't provided by the board (directly or indirectly). From the recent statement about director-supplied funding, the at-bank and burn-rate positions are reasonably clear: there is about 1AL prior to taking additional loans around now, and the burn-rate in excess of non-ST, non-loan, non-rights issue (etc.) income is very close to 1AL/4 months. Debt before new loans is about 2AL. Projected debt at start of 2016 STs sales period is around 4AL. 2. BTC appeal in favour of HMRC Seems like a big deal to many on both sides; but there is no effect that I can see on Rangers finances. 3. EBT fine tribunal Apparently due to report soon. Although this will no doubt cause much BRALT frothing, the total exposure is a mere 0.08AL. No significant effect on finances and equivalent to under 2 weeks of burn rate. Summary Although there has been a lot of gossip and ammo for points-scoring, I don't think that recent events have materially affected the financial position of Rangers, or even what we know about that position. They are 2AL in debt and need to take that to about 4AL to get through to ST sales in 2016. The predicted shortfall for the current season is clearly very far out. I don't know why that figure has been given, but it will certainly be revised as it is palpably out by miles. Perhaps that increase in shortfall will be spun to be linked to some events that have yet to unfold, but as of today, the number given is so far out as to "not even be wrong", and is easily checked from the available data. SInce they are unlikely to get another AL perhaps a 3B basis would be more intuitive. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim McLean's Ghost Posted November 4, 2015 Share Posted November 4, 2015 I haven't seen the latest accounts but the highlights make interesting reading. The turnover has dramatically fallen but is this due to less loans being taken on (do loans count as turnover?) After player salaries are taken off there is still £10m left over but they need £2.5m to keep the club afloat. What are they spending £12.5m on? McCoist's greenhouse can't cost that much. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
strichener Posted November 4, 2015 Share Posted November 4, 2015 I haven't seen the latest accounts but the highlights make interesting reading. The turnover has dramatically fallen but is this due to less loans being taken on (do loans count as turnover?) After player salaries are taken off there is still £10m left over but they need £2.5m to keep the club afloat. What are they spending £12.5m on? McCoist's greenhouse can't cost that much. "Matchday costs" are £10m. It would appear that the more football they play, the more money it costs and the more money they lose. The simple solution would be for them to stop playing football matches... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Kincardine Posted November 4, 2015 Share Posted November 4, 2015 2. BTC appeal in favour of HMRCSeems like a big deal to many 3. EBT fine tribunal This will no doubt cause much BRALT frothing Summary A lot of gossip and ammo for points-scoring, I've stripped out all the dispassionate analysis and calm financial bollocks to get to the heart of your post which I can summarise as follows: Yet again The Plastics and Diddies are unnecessarily getting their drawers in a fankle. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Insaintee Posted November 4, 2015 Share Posted November 4, 2015 I've stripped out all the dispassionate analysis and calm financial bollocks to get to the heart of your post which I can summarise as follows: Yet again The Plastics and Diddies are unnecessarily getting their drawers in a fankle. f**k of you guilty tax dodging c**t 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Kincardine Posted November 4, 2015 Share Posted November 4, 2015 f**k of you guilty tax dodging c**t No you f**k of. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
printer Posted November 4, 2015 Share Posted November 4, 2015 It was suggested to me in another context that "an Ashley loan" might be a useful way of viewing things. I like that idea. 0 Quote Link to comment 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.