Interesting points - specially the one about season ticket holders potentially getting preferential treatment.
Printable View
Interesting points - specially the one about season ticket holders potentially getting preferential treatment.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Seveno
I reckon if the grunts ever went into administration you would uncover a lot more that what we are seeing at Ibrox.
That is right they need to have had audited accounts signed off by March 31st otherwise they wont be able to play in Europe next season.Quote:
Originally Posted by ano hibby
I suspect that the accounts will be seen as a priority.... with the potential for extra income that their lodging has..Quote:
Originally Posted by JimBHibees
I can only guess at what the auditors were hesitating over, but much of the material that has been uncovered over the past week must be helpful to them.
Interesting point here.....
http://wck2.companieshouse.gov.uk/84...a4/compdetails
The Rangers Football Club of Glasgow Limited was formed on 20 February 2012.
Wonder who stays at that address in Kirkcaldy.Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
Looks a complete wind up IMO.
My first thought was that it would be a solicitors' office, but it looks as if it's residential.Quote:
Originally Posted by JimBHibees
Some enterprising young buck trying to make a buck by selling the name?
registered office is what looks awfy like a council house in the middle of KirkcaldyQuote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?hl=en&...ed=0CCAQ8gEwAA
probably some laugh-a-minute Celtc fan.
No doubt, hope he hasnt put his own address as he could be getting some interesting visitors I would have thought. If he has put someone else's then you have got to feel sorry for them.Quote:
Originally Posted by Part/Time Supporter
:agree: That or a wind up.Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
I don't know if it was the only reason, but Whyte's argument that they couldn't sign off while the big tax case was pending was entirely justified. The audit opinion would have had to be so heavily qualified it was better to wait until things were clearer.Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
You're being an auditor again, Cav:wink:Quote:
Originally Posted by Caversham Green
I can see that, and it would make sense. But I wonder now whether any of the information that has come out in the past week (eg the Ticketus stuff) was available to the auditors.
That's in T-Hall (Templehall) Kirkcaldy, not know for high flying solicitor types. Council scheme mostly.Quote:
Originally Posted by JimBHibees
Craig's coke dealer? :confused:Quote:
Originally Posted by EuanH78
I know - I just can't let go.Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
Given what we were discussing on the PM board I do wonder how the auditors would have dealt with it. I suspect that they were not unhappy that it was all delayed because of the BTC. Still looking forward to the Yams' audit report as well - it's like a drug.
Maybe they just didn't know?Quote:
Originally Posted by Caversham Green
At that point.... year end, June... audit late summer... they would have known about the borrowing being paid off.
Would they have known about the Ticketus money being due in? If they did know, maybe they were looking for the debit :greengrin.... or maybe Craigy boy just wouldn't tell them where the money had gone.
I agree that it was easier for them to delay as long as possible.... as long as they stuck in an interim bill. :wink:
Nearly 2 weeks into administration and everything just seems to be ticking along as normal at Ibrox. Does that not strike everyone as rather unusual?:confused:
The deal was done in May was it not? If so the auditors would certainly have known about it unless Mr W deliberately concealed it. And yes, they would have had problems with the debit, not least because a holding company debtor would have represented the company lending money to buy its own shares which I reckon is illegal.Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
Interim bill? goes without saying.
Hmm, don't know I agree that it's "as normal".Quote:
Originally Posted by Spike Mandela
From that blog you quoted, the guy seems to suggest things aren't going as quickly as, for example, Portsmouth. The two situations are probably (and I use that word because I am not that clued-up about Portsmouth, and of course we only have some of the RFC story) very different.
I think things have moved quite quickly. They got a big pay day last week (albeit it seems the polis haven't been paid:greengrin), have found £24m, established the true extent of the HMRC debt, and have passed details along to the police.
I can understand the admins getting those things sorted first, before setting about the redundancies. Only by getting the proper financial picture can they make the appropriate cuts.
You wanting the players sacked, Spike?? You and everybody else :agree:
Oh, you're so cynical.....:rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by Caversham Green
Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
In terms of current Accounting Standards (known as FRS's) and, particularly, RRS21"Events After the Balance Sheet Date", auditors have a responsibility to look at relevant information about:
1. Material matters that either affect the conditions prevailing at the balance sheet date regarding the company ("adjusting events" as the balance sheet amounts should, where applicable, be adjusted to reflect the effect of those conditions); and
2. Material matters that are indicative of conditions that arose after the balance sheet date for which the entity does not adjust the amounts recognised in its financial statements ("non adjusting events" in so far as the relevant balance sheet amounts are concerned.
If non-adjusting events after the balance sheet date are material and non-disclosure could influence the economic decisions of users the entity should disclose the nature of the event and an estimate of its financial effect, or a statement that such an estimate cannot be made.
I imagine that the sale of the RFC plc to RFC Group, the repayment of the LBG Loan by RFCG, the retention of the Ticketus cash from the sale of future ST's of RFC in the aggregate and each on its own may have been a "material matter" that was caught by the previous paragraph (in bold) and required at least disclosure! This could have been an area of "disagreement" between CW and the auditors resulting in the accounts being delayed. :agree:
The events in bold happened within the accounting year.Quote:
Originally Posted by TornadoHibby
:tee hee: :tee hee: :tee hee:Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
Excellent! :greengrin :wink:
I'm amazed that you think the last two weeks at Ibrox is normal. :wink:Quote:
Originally Posted by Spike Mandela
If by unusual, you mean that the administrator has made minimal effort to cut costs (ie sacking players) in a loss-making business, then yes, it is unusual.Quote:
Originally Posted by Spike Mandela
I don't think a Celtc fan would have gates like these:Quote:
Originally Posted by Part/Time Supporter
Attachment 7943 :greengrin
Brilliant!Quote:
Originally Posted by Sergio sledge
Well, we know where his benefit money went this week. :cb
Well in that case the auditors should have been fully aware (i.e. asked for and received full details) of all of the details of the various transactions and that would probably be the reason why the accounts are delayed as there are possible audit concerns regarding these transactions, depending upon the actual circumstances and facts, which should be properly explained to the auditors satisfaction by the directors and be compliant with Company Law and GAAP. Otherwise the auditors would "qualify" the audit report which is something to be avoided by any company wherever possible.Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
It wasn't those (in-year) transactions that I was talking about earlier. It was the Ticketus one... whether they were aware of it and, if so, what their view on it was.Quote:
Originally Posted by TornadoHibby
Whether it was within the financial year or not, UK financial reporting and auditing standards and Company Law requires that material matters such as these are properly recorded and disclosed to all users of financial statements. Although on the face of it the Ticketus might be considered to be a normal trading transaction in that it deals with the sale of (future periods) ST sales, the "inter-company" "loans" aspect for want of a better description make it something that should be highlighted in the accounts if failure to do so might prejudice a proper understanding of the Company's financial position as a result!Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod