Generic Sevco / Rangers meltdown thread

[Wee Effen Bee]

My experience on corporate finance? Zilch - only time I read about financial news items is on this board when money threads are posted about us, the the them and Hertz. But I do have an opinion: nowt will happen again this year and the Huns will struggle through till they can raise some bawbees from STs or somewhere. The reason for this? We can't be THAT lucky twice in a calendar year can we - grubbed them in a spectacular manner in the SC final and then they go kaput soon after? That would be football porn...I mean gold

[southsider]

Is there any way (however remote) that Whyte may win the court case and the assets of the rangers are transferred to him again ? Now that would be funny.

[Kavinho]

Genuinely, can't see an insolvency event coming any time soon.

[northstandhibby]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Genuinely, can't see an insolvency event coming any time soon.

If the group who hibs were financially dependent on had posted going concerns that they required significant additional money to maintain being kept afloat I would be changing my breeks.

GGTTH

[Kavinho]

When you see these year on year though and the funding is found, you get better control of your sphincter muscles!


Revenue up 6m and losses fallen by 4m.

Can only see Revenue for them Increasing again this year.

They are looking more attractive than before to an investor (starting from a very low base of course), so I don't see them struggling to find a relatively 'short term' funding option - even if it's not TLK'S own funds.


Now that said, they are clearly not out of the woods yet.

[CropleyWasGod]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Genuinely, can't see an insolvency event coming any time soon.

For me, it's dependent on the attitude of the external funders.

3.75m is repayable on demand. The rest by December 17. If the former suddenly needed their cash.......

And don't forget HMRC. 2.8M IIRC.

Sent from my SM-A510F using Tapatalk

[Keith_M]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

When you see these year on year though and the funding is found, you get better control of your sphincter muscles!


Revenue up 6m and losses fallen by 4m.

Can only see Revenue for them Increasing again this year.

They are looking more attractive than before to an investor (sussing from a very low base of course), so I don't see them struggling to find a relatively 'short term' funding option - even if it's not TLK'S own funds.


Now that said, they are clearly not out of the woods yet.

That would be true, if it wasn't for the fact that their losses are only so low because they're putting off paying for essential repairs to the stadium.

Anybody buying the Club from King would have to be prepared to spend millions on Ibrox... or continue to fund the Council with brown envelopes.

[Kavinho]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

For me, it's dependent on the attitude of the external funders.

3.75m is repayable on demand. The rest by December 17. If the former suddenly needed their cash.......

And don't forget HMRC. 2.8M IIRC.

Sent from my SM-A510F using Tapatalk

The Hmrc will have been included in their 'bills falling due' calculations.
And did they not say that 2.9m of funding has been provided this month, with more expected in March17.

It'll only be demanded if they don't service it, so it's not like they have to have it resting in an account to meet that as yet undemanded figure.

Not saying it won't be expensive funding,but I expect they'll find a way..

[CropleyWasGod]

The HMRC figure is over and above the loans repayable on demand.

They had 9m of current liabilities. 3.75m of that is loans, 5.2m other creditors; of the latter, 2.8m due to HMRC.

How that has been dealt with since June is anyone's guess. Given their past experience with HMRC, that's the debt that should have been attacked first.

Sent from my SM-A510F using Tapatalk

[magpie1892]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

They are looking more attractive than before to an investor

Please tell me this is not a serious comment.

[Jones28]

Daily Mail reporting that their investor debt has risen to £10 million, wheres Mr King and his tens of millions now?

[CropleyWasGod]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Daily Mail reporting that their investor debt has risen to £10 million, wheres Mr King and his tens of millions now?

Unless the Daily Mail has access to the inner workings of the club, they're looking at the accounts.

It was 10m at the end of June. A further 2.9m has been borrowed since then.

Sent from my SM-A510F using Tapatalk

[Kavinho]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Please tell me this is not a serious comment.

My only point is its an improvement since before!!

They are less of a basket case than they used to be. They have more access to bigger income than before.!

By the way the full quote should read.
They are looking more attractive than before to an investor (starting from a very low base of course).

[CropleyWasGod]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

My only point is its an improvement since before!!

They are less of a basket case than they used to be. They have more access to bigger income than before.!

Drilling into the accounts, they're not really less of a basket case. Their Net Current Liabilities, which is a measure of their short term solvency, haven't moved in the 12 months since the last accounts.

Sent from my SM-A510F using Tapatalk

[ian cruise]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

My only point is its an improvement since before!!

They are less of a basket case than they used to be. They have more access to bigger income than before.!

You've got a point, they aren't an attractive position for an investor but they're not as bad as they were. I think they'll limp onwards until they're OK.

I actually think relegation would see fans rally round and support the club as they could rehash the old hard done to because Scottish football is out to get them, If they finished 9th or 10th I'd actually see more fans walking away as they realised their future is just as a poor SPFL club.

[Ozyhibby]

With the new Rangers, a lot depends on them keeping the fans on side. That may not be easy as they realise just how big the gap with Celtic is.
These accounts show a turnover of £22m. Celtics last accounts had a turnover of £52m and that was considered a bad year for them. This season they are expected to turnover £80m.
As the Sevconians begin to realise that this gap is not closing and they are going to be Espanyol to Celtics Barca, they may start to lose interest like they did in the 80's before the Bank of Scotland started funding Murray's crazy spending.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Deansy]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

With the new Rangers, a lot depends on them keeping the fans on side. That may not be easy as they realise just how big the gap with Celtic is.
These accounts show a turnover of £22m. Celtics last accounts had a turnover of £52m and that was considered a bad year for them. This season they are expected to turnover £80m.
As the Sevconians begin to realise that this gap is not closing and they are going to be Espanyol to Celtics Barca, they may start to lose interest like they did in the 80's before the Bank of Scotland started funding Murray's crazy spending.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

What I'v been saying for ages - today's Hun just doesn't seem to have any knowledge or memory of what things were like for them BEFORE the 'Money years' !. The vast majority of them thought as soon as they made to to the SPL they'd be challenging for all the honours going - truly, they are without doubt, the dumbest support in football !

[magpie1892]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

My only point is its an improvement since before!!

They are less of a basket case than they used to be. They have more access to bigger income than before.!

By the way the full quote should read.
They are looking more attractive than before to an investor (starting from a very low base of course).

There is no improvement on the balance sheet. Then you need to factor in the cost of repairs required to Ibrox, and the millions of pounds leaving Ibrox to pay the wages of Barton, Krancjar, Garner, Senderos, Hill, etc. No commercial income, etc.

'They have more access to a bigger income than before.!' - I really don't understand what this means.

The RoI on any money 'invested' in the hun at the present moment would be to lose the ****ing lot.

[Kavinho]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

There is no improvement on the balance sheet. Then you need to factor in the cost of repairs required to Ibrox, and the millions of pounds leaving Ibrox to pay the wages of Barton, Krancjar, Garner, Senderos, Hill, etc. No commercial income, etc.

'They have more access to a bigger income than before.!' - I really don't understand what this means.

The RoI on any money 'invested' in the hun at the present moment would be to lose the ****ing lot.

I'm just saying they will have bigger receipts this year when compared to last. - more punters watching more telly money and more prize money.

Bit of double counting re the wages. They'd have counted them when establishing what payments are falling due, before saying they need to plug a gap of less than 4m, of which they've said they've found 2.9m this month(based only on an above post).

Yes, they've put off maintenance, yes the place is ropey and needs it.

But its not the balance sheet bit I'm taking about.. its the cash flow. I mean its not about fixing the building, just if they can afford to keep paying the lighting and water bills!

We're not really far off the same point.
But the bit you took exception to earlier was just me saying this year, they are worth a bigger look compared to last year if you are an Ann Budge type character willing to take the risk and get a better interest rate back than your bank would give you.

[Ozyhibby]

In October 2015, Ibrox and Auchenhowie were valued at a total of £75.5m. In the accounts, after provisions for depreciation and impairment, the pair are valued at a total of £40.4m. That’s a £35m drop in a year suggesting that there has been a significant issue with either Ibrox or Auchenhowie.

Any accountants explain this bit to me?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Weststandwanab]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

In October 2015, Ibrox and Auchenhowie were valued at a total of £75.5m. In the accounts, after provisions for depreciation and impairment, the pair are valued at a total of £40.4m. That’s a £35m drop in a year suggesting that there has been a significant issue with either Ibrox or Auchenhowie.

Any accountants explain this bit to me?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Originally deliberately over valued, in my opinion, to improve the look of their balance sheet,

[CropleyWasGod]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

In October 2015, Ibrox and Auchenhowie were valued at a total of £75.5m. In the accounts, after provisions for depreciation and impairment, the pair are valued at a total of £40.4m. That’s a £35m drop in a year suggesting that there has been a significant issue with either Ibrox or Auchenhowie.

Any accountants explain this bit to me?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

There has been a change in the way in which accounts must show the value of buildings. They now have to be depreciated, where there was no such need before.

Our own accounts had the same issue....although the effect on the Balance Sheet was much less dramatic.

If you look at the RFC accounts, there will be a note showing what the buildings would have been valued at last year, had they been on the "new" basis.

IMHO, it's a bit of an academic issue. Buildings are not necessarily worth what they are shown at in the accounts.

Sent from my SM-A510F using Tapatalk

[Ozyhibby]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Originally deliberately over valued, in my opinion, to improve the look of their balance sheet,

I'm just wondering why it had to be devalued this year?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[CropleyWasGod]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

I'm just wondering why it had to be devalued this year?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

To comply with the new Accounting Standard, which only came into effect this year. We did it, as should every company that has buildings.

Sent from my SM-A510F using Tapatalk

[Jack]

I recall something about Ashley getting first dibs on some assets or other if they went into liquidation or down the tubes again.

Has this changed when I wiznae looking?

[CropleyWasGod]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

I recall something about Ashley getting first dibs on some assets or other if they went into liquidation or down the tubes again.

Has this changed when I wiznae looking?

It did when his loan was repaid.

He had a security....but only to the extent of the loan. That security was released when the loan was repaid.

Sent from my SM-A510F using Tapatalk

[CropleyWasGod]

Elsewhere in the accounts....

http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/1...re_not_liable/

Sent from my SM-A510F using Tapatalk

[The Falcon]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

There's no argument IMO.

It's 25 points for a second insolvency within 5 years, even if the owner of the club has changed.

Sent from my SM-A510F using Tapatalk

What if the Club has changed?

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Drilling into the accounts, they're not really less of a basket case. Their Net Current Liabilities, which is a measure of their short term solvency, haven't moved in the 12 months since the last accounts.

Sent from my SM-A510F using Tapatalk

I am no expert but surely if we have learned anything from the Oldco and Yams implosions its that the the value of the assets Football Clubs place on their stadiums (particularly in the book value of Tincastle and Ipox) is nowhere near the amount that will be realised in any fire sale? Not seen the accounts but if the buildings were valued at the amounts that the administrators recovered from theiir sale, then how would the accounts look? After all it was only a few years ago so that should be a decent benchmark figure........

[CropleyWasGod]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

What if the Club has changed?



I am no expert but surely if we have learned anything from the Oldco and Yams implosions its that the the value of the assets Football Clubs place on their stadiums (particularly in the book value of Tincastle and Ipox) is nowhere near the amount that will be realised in any fire sale? Not seen the accounts but if the buildings were valued at the amounts that the administrators recovered from theiir sale, then how would the accounts look? After all it was only a few years ago so that should be a decent benchmark figure........

Accounts are prepared on the basis that the company is a Going Concern. Hence the value should reflect that.

As for the first question.....beat it, that's been done to death on here

Sent from my SM-A510F using Tapatalk

[Famous Fiver]

I have not read the 1178 pages on this thread but did I read somewhere that the need an additional £8 Million over in the next year just to keep the lights on?