“Sources close to Whyte” in economical with truth shocker!


Yesterday’s blog post revealed for the first time in any media outlet (mainstream or otherwise) that Rangers had prepared an appeal of the “wee tax case” and seems to have ruffled a few feathers in the process.

In this morning’s Daily Telegraph, Roddy Forsyth reports: “A source close to Craig Whyte, the Rangers owner, told The Daily Telegraph that an appeal had been lodged several months ago against the liability – incurred under the previous regime of Sir David Murray and not to be confused with the much larger potential debt to HMRC… … The source added emphatically that the existing appeal was not intended to be a defence against Uefa sanctions.”

First, Forsyth is confused or has been misled.  This appeal absolutely and categorically was not filed “several months ago“.  Assuming that Forsyth is not confused, his source is either a shameless liar whose opinions on any of these matters should be treated on a par with asking Joseph Goebbels how the defence of Berlin is going- or his source does not know what is going on.

Next, why did it require “a source close to Craig Whyte“?  Why not an on-the-record statement from the club or one of its executives?  Why have Rangers not made any reference to an appeal of the “wee tax case” assessment prior to my post yesterday?

The phrase “a source close to Craig Whyte” is reminiscent of all of those fabulous promises made in the run-up to the takeover.  Googling this phrase is instructive.  “A source close to Craig Whyte” has been responsible for the following gems being quoted in our mainstream media without critical analysis or qualification:

  • For a start, the deal Craig Whyte is putting forward is worth £52.5m, more than double the amount apparently to be raised by this unnamed Rangers director.  Further, the Craig Whyte investment in the club would begin on day one of a deal being completed.”
  • “…the businessman had decided to make available “significantly more” than the average sum of £5m-a-season to Ally McCoist when he succeeds current manager Walter Smith at the start of next term.”
  • “Ally knows he will have significant funds to spend on players”

With the track record of such “sources close to Whyte” one has to wonder why any member of the press would take them seriously?  Roddy Forsyth is one of the better journalists among a very poor bunch.  However, to repeat the words of someone who will undoubtedly be one of Whyte’s handsomely rewarded PR goons without getting objective proof is symptomatic of the malaise affecting Scottish football journalism.  The lazily and cheaply acquired quote is favoured over truth.  To repeat the words of someone who misleads others for a living without obtaining objective confirmation is just comically stupid or willfully negligent.    I must assume that the subject of Rangers’ accumulating unpaid PAYE & national insurance money just did not come up in conversation?

I do not claim to know with any certainty the motivation behind the appeal.  So I cannot swear that it is related to the mounting pressure for Rangers to make an official and unequivocal statement on the status of this liability to HMRC as of 31 March 2011.  However, the timing of the appeal does look convenient.  I must acknowledge that it is also very possible that it is simply driven by financial necessity i.e. it is an attempt to reverse the arrestment of the £2.3m which is currently frozen prior to it disappearing forever within the next couple of weeks. However, I can confidently state that the launching of this appeal is very recent indeed.

Of course, this can all be cleared up easily.  Mr. Whyte can tell us when the appeal was submitted.  He can produce the appeal documents and show the dates to members of the press.  Even members of his own trusted cadre of tame hacks would suffice.  The central facts of the case are not in dispute and have been a matter of public record since Rangers’ interim accounts were released on 1st April. There will not be many real confidentiality concerns. We know the amount and to what it is related.  All we need to know is the date of the appeal.  This could debunk both my post from yesterday and the theory (expounded by others) that the SFA improperly granted Rangers a UEFA license for the 2011/2012 season.

Go ahead Mr. Whyte.  Prove me wrong.  And Mr Forsyth, you could apply a bit more critical thinking in your work.  If you are interested in the question of Rangers’ UEFA license, you can ask your contacts at Ibrox and at Hampden to show you the evidence.  It would be a good bit of journalism and could lay this issue to rest once and for all.

About rangerstaxcase
I have information on Rangers' tax case, and I will use this blog to provide the details of what Rangers FC have done, why it was illegal, and what the implications for what was (updated) one of the largest football clubs in Britain.

1,149 Responses to “Sources close to Whyte” in economical with truth shocker!

  1. Hugh McEwan says:

    the Don Dionisio says:
    04/12/2011 at 10:15 pm

    Billy Boy Dodds, with an impeccable turn of phrase, suggests Aluko “has got to take a look at himself”.

    Pray tell, how will that help?

    ==========================

    Clichés are ten a penny.

  2. stunney says:

    The latest unaudited accounts (12 months to 30 June 2011) state a

    Gain on disposal of player registrations of 4.202m

    and a

    Profit for the year of 0.076m

    Without that gain of 4.202m, the profit for the year would, in fact, have been a loss of 4.126m. That’s with CL and Europa income (and–I think–making provision for the wee tax bill).

    The trading profit on ordinary operations was 9.658m. Dock 18m in lost European revenues this year would give you a trading loss of over 8 million by the end of June 2012. That’s before you pay the wee bill and before player transfers and before interest charges..

    Question for anyone willing to speculate:

    What will be the rough current running total gain or loss on player trading for the 12 month accounts to June 30 2012?

    Adam? Embdy?

  3. Lord Wobbly says:

    Hugh McEwan says:
    04/12/2011 at 10:17 pm
    the Don Dionisio says:
    04/12/2011 at 10:15 pm
    Billy Boy Dodds, with an impeccable turn of phrase, suggests
    Aluko “has got to take a look at himself”.
    Pray tell, how will that help?
    ==========================
    Clichés are ten a penny.
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    Maybe he should look himself in the eye, ask himself if he dived and then see who blinks first.

  4. thegreenbhoy says:

    Do not know if RTC allows predictions however I have a suspicion that the MBB will increase the debt as much as possible then not sell anyone in January and also buy a couple of players to get the debt level as high as the FTT result giving him as much as a say so as HMRC. Just a thought and a horrible one at that however there sems to be no logic in this mans plans

  5. TheBlackKnight says:

    thegreenbhoy on 04/12/2011 at 10:25 pm

    Buy them with what? The below radar “unfathomable wealth”?

  6. OnandOnandOnand says:

    Extending accounting periods………..

    Current law is section 392 (3) of the Companies Act 2006. Can’t be done if the accounting period was extended in the previous 5 years.

    http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2006/46/section/392

  7. Hugh McEwan says:

    thegreenbhoy says:
    04/12/2011 at 10:25 pm

    Do not know if RTC allows predictions however I have a suspicion that the MBB will increase the debt as much as possible then not sell anyone in January and also buy a couple of players to get the debt level as high as the FTT result giving him as much as a say so as HMRC. Just a thought and a horrible one at that however there sems to be no logic in this mans plans

    ======================================

    If the debt level is as high as the FTT ruling then he would hold less than 50% of the debt.

    Not really sure what your point is. Maybe I am missing something.

  8. jean says:

    Lord Wobbly says:
    04/12/2011 at 10:24 pm

    🙂

  9. OnandOnandOnand says:

    Oh, and the accounts must be circulated 21 clear days before the AGM Section 424 (2). Thursday is last day for posting for both accounts and notice of AGM

  10. iain mcg says:

    Greenbhoy,

    MBB has a floating charge, is ranked prior to HMRC in an administration. He doesn’t give two hoots for HMRC or where they stand

  11. Brogan Rogan Trevino and Hogan says:

    Lord Wobbly says:

    04/12/2011 at 10:24 pm

    Hugh McEwan says:
    04/12/2011 at 10:17 pm
    the Don Dionisio says:
    04/12/2011 at 10:15 pm
    Billy Boy Dodds, with an impeccable turn of phrase, suggests
    Aluko “has got to take a look at himself”.
    Pray tell, how will that help?
    ==========================
    Clichés are ten a penny.
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    Maybe he should look himself in the eye, ask himself if he dived and then see who blinks first.
    —————————————————————————————————————————–

    Personally I think that Aluko is heading for a fall and he should take a tumble to himself…..what?…. he’s already done that?.. well I never…. back flippin heck I say but don’t worry about the SFA because he will just rollover them!

  12. Good evening all – the very interesting discussions earlier regarding the nature of journalism v blogging prompted me to make some comments. As is usual, this ran to a couple of thousand words, so rather than take up all of the comments section – here it is –

    http://scotslawthoughts.wordpress.com/2011/12/04/can-blogs-like-rangers-tax-case-take-over-from-mainstream-media/

  13. corsica says:

    I said goodnight earlier on but this blog is like bloody car crash TV! and something has been bugging me since I last posted.

    As I do not have access to the RFC M&A, I am assuming that all members are shareholders and all shareholders are members (which would be usual).
    RFC has to minute all board meetings and resolutions (Companies Act 2006).
    These minutes have to be made available to any member who requests them.
    Therefore if a friendly RFC shareholder was to request and get this info, we might shed a whole new light on proceedings (they could use whistle-blowing rights to protect themselves)….

    Alternatively, someone could buy a share. Hmm….

  14. TheBlackKnight says:

    Brogan Rogan Trevino and Hogan on 04/12/2011 at 10:59 pm said:
    Lord Wobbly says:

    04/12/2011 at 10:24 pm

    Hugh McEwan says:
    04/12/2011 at 10:17 pm
    the Don Dionisio says:
    04/12/2011 at 10:15 pm
    Billy Boy Dodds, with an impeccable turn of phrase, suggests
    Aluko “has got to take a look at himself”.
    Pray tell, how will that help?
    ==========================
    Clichés are ten a penny.
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    Maybe he should look himself in the eye, ask himself if he dived and then see who blinks first.
    —————————————————————————————————————————–

    Personally I think that Aluko is heading for a fall and he should take a tumble to himself…..what?…. he’s already done that?.. well I never…. back flippin heck I say but don’t worry about the SFA because he will just rollover them!

    ———————————————

    Given the ‘stranglehold’ they have over the SFA referees, I think their defense will be a Whittaker 😉

  15. OnandOnandOnand says:

    Corsica

    You assume that there are board meetings, maybe in the pub as Wee Craigie, Phil and Withers drown their sorrows

  16. OnandOnandOnand says:

    Greig and McLelland resigned because there were no board meetings, well, none they were invited to

  17. Lord Wobbly says:

    corsica says:
    04/12/2011 at 11:11 pm
    I said goodnight earlier on but this blog is like bloody car crash
    TV! and something has been bugging me since I last posted.
    As I do not have access to the RFC M&A, I am assuming that all
    members are shareholders and all shareholders are members
    (which would be usual).
    RFC has to minute all board meetings and resolutions (Companies Act 2006).
    These minutes have to be made available to any member who
    requests them.
    Therefore if a friendly RFC shareholder was to request and get this info, we might shed a whole new light on proceedings (they could use whistle-blowing rights to protect themselves)….
    Alternatively, someone could buy a share. Hmm
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    I haven’t got any change. Maybe if we all ask Adam really really nicely…..? 😀

  18. Fritz Agrandoldteam says:

    TheBlackKnight says:
    04/12/2011 at 11:13 pm

    No defence required. It was just another top SPL referee making another honest mistake.

  19. Slimshady says:

    OnandOnandOnand says:
    04/12/2011 at 10:29 pm
    Extending accounting periods………..

    Current law is section 392 (3) of the Companies Act 2006. Can’t be done if the accounting period was extended in the previous 5 years.
    —————————————
    Actually it can be done even if the accounting period was extended in the last 5 years and that is where the company changes ownership. In that case it is allowed to align its year end to that of its new owner. That is a useful trick providing you make sure that the new parent company has the year end you most desire.

    I would be surprised if MBB failed to take that into account when putting the new structure in place

  20. OnandOnandOnand says:

    Slimshady

    What percentage of shares has to change hands to constitute a change of ownership?

    Lord Wobbly, you can have my shares if you like. I shall be waiting expectantly on my notice of AGM and accounts being delivered on Saturday (no way will Wee Craigie send it first class…..)

  21. TheBlackKnight says:

    Fritz Agrandoldteam on 04/12/2011 at 11:31 pm said:
    “No defence required. It was just another top SPL referee making another 2 honest mistakes.”

    Edited for accuracy 😉

    (way off topic – apologies – but did anyone else see the stranglehold and bring to the ground of the Dunfermline player right infront of Mr Conroy? The press pack may be terrible, but the refereeing decisions are beyond levels of competency )

  22. Ian Ferguson says:

    Adam says:

    04/12/2011 at 10:22 am

    Torquemada says:
    04/12/2011 at 8:30 am

    Do you ever post anything at all to do with the blog?
    ======================
    “Privately, the police have admitted that it is their intention to “smash” the Irish Republican, Marxist Green Brigade. They are willing to go to extreme lengths, in terms of their use of survelliance and a wide range of extraneous powers, to do so.”

    Off Topic as well Adam, but the above is a wee quote from the Scotland on Sunday.

    almost makes me feel like saying “WOW JUST WOW”

    But on a more serious note, as I have told you before The bias is there, Politicians, Police, Media & The SFA.

    Please answer without a wow or a paranoid quote, or better still don’t bother.

    Just think on things.

    Does it not alarm you that the police choose to exceed their power on one hand & not implement them on the other & that politicians let them?

    This leads injustice & persecution at best or a totalitarian state at worst?

  23. Ian Ferguson says:

    Adam says:

    04/12/2011 at 3:12 pm

    I see off topic is still allowed and unchallenged. Suppose “my lot” should remain quiet or talk about off topic opinions in some cyber “lounge” somewhere.
    =======================================
    No Adam bring them on , make them factual, not Wow just Wow or your paranoid & your more than welcome.

  24. Davythelotion says:

    Scottish journalism is as embarrasing as anything exposed in the Leveson enquiry. Journalists are people like Martin Bell and Jon Snow, Jabba et al are simply repeating what they are told, they don’t question or challenge because they don’t have it. As for Keevins and Chic, the facial hair is as a result of not being able to face oneself in the mirror.

  25. corsica says:

    OnandOnandOnand says:
    04/12/2011 at 11:14 pm

    Corsica
    You assume that there are board meetings, maybe in the pub as Wee Craigie, Phil and Withers drown their sorrows
    ********************************************
    OnandOnandOnand says:
    04/12/2011 at 11:16 pm

    Greig and McLelland resigned because there were no board meetings, well, none they were invited to
    ********************************************
    Lord Wobbly says:
    04/12/2011 at 11:19 pm

    I haven’t got any change. Maybe if we all ask Adam really really nicely…..?
    ********************************************

    They must have board meetings – it is a defining feature of a company – and the M&A would set out their frequency, etc. Even if they were immediately adjourned. BUT there would still have to be minutes and that’s what is bugging me!

    There would also usually be a clause relating to members’ voting rights being suspended if they have not paid over any monies due to the club so where does CW stand on that given his clear failure to stick to his side of the takeover bargain?

    I was actually thinking of buying in myself if I can bring myself to do so but it is the time it would take that’s the issue (obviously not the buying of a share – I can do that right now); I cannot see how RFC as it currently stands would process the registration and admin process within a sufficiently short time to enable me to get at the info before it was too late. Has anyone got the M&A and can it be posted here?

    BTW, was on RFC website looking for the M&A and spotted that trustees of Rangers Charity Foundation are:

    Craig Whyte and Jaccqueline Gourlay

    PLUS

    John Grieg and Martin Bain

    Those must be interesting meetings, eh?

  26. OnandOnandOnand says:

    Corsica

    I make the same offer to you as I made to His Lordship, if you want shares, have mine. They came to me from my sadly missed father who is called “Birrlin…(insert name)” as he is spinning so much in his grave

  27. Ian Ferguson says:

    Hugh McEwan says:

    04/12/2011 at 8:23 pm

    The whole thing re going to the top 5 and asking them to sign off on the accounts really does sound like a lot of bawl licks to me.

    If Grant Thornton are having issues, and RTC tells us they are having problems even getting answers to their questions put to Rangers, then why would anyone think another top firm would take on the job and it would be any different.

    They would have to go over all of the record again, audit them, ask any questions they had, get answers, prepare a report and agree or disagree the figures. That’s not going to be cheap or quick.

    There’s also the fact that they know GT did not complete the work.

    My vote is, lot of bunkum.
    ==========================
    Exactly, but you missed one important item, they would also expect to be PAID.

  28. corsica says:

    Ox3

    I was actually being serious, but not to worry I have asked my broker to look into it. I don’t want to spend a grand and end up owning the bloody club!

  29. jean says:

    lol @O&Ox3

    Not contributing much to this blog but I find it really funny sometimes 🙂

  30. OnandOnandOnand says:

    Corsica

    Sorry, I didn’t realise you were being serious. Given my earlier postings about the lack of board meetings as evidenced by Greig and McLelland, I thought you would have realised that the idea of Wee Craigie having board meetings was a non-starter. I have no idea why you would spend a grand buying shares when you can pick them up for buttons but I suppose a fool and his money are soon parted

  31. ScottyJ says:

    A couple of questions for the knowledgeable, regarding the re-convening of the FTT. It has been implied that both MIH and RFC are being investigated, as both were involved in EBT’s. Are both being looked at together here, or is this FTT for RFC alone? Will the two parties have a reasonable idea as to what the verdict is likely to be for RFC alone before the session ends? If MBB thinks the likely decision looks bad, and pulls the plug before the end of the FTT, does the hearing still go on to produce a verdict, or does that collapse as well? Just trying to work out in my own mind who can blame who, for what, and when.

  32. Par Annoyed says:

    I read this blog as it and others like it are the only places where I can read about the demise of Rangers. I am not able to read anything meaningful or truthful in the Scottish media. The respective TV coverage is paltry, except for one BBC programme. The BBC financial reporter, Douglas Fraser, is either incompetent or deliberately obtuse.

    Scottish sports journalism is naught but an eternal merry-go-round of Rangers apologists, so I’ll find nothing there. What lapdog would bite the hand that feeds it?

    So it is in these pages I search for opinions. The tax-case and legal opinions I realise, will be lengthy and convoluted but informative. However, I see the usual protagonists inhabit this board too. The ones who will try to debate everything out of existence, and have the brass neck to accuse us of being tiresome and eternally paranoid.

    Do I detect this current debate about the poor standard of Scottish football journalism receiving the same treatment? Extend it to all Scottish journalists. Dilute the argument and cause another smokescreen/red herring distraction. Brush it aside by filling pages with irrelevance, they’ll soon find it tiresome.

    The old campaign of misinformation and cover up is coming to an end. The facts are available to those willing to search. It has been a revealing and saddening journey at times to see the lengths one club has gone to maintain a sense of superiority aided by willing “journalists”, in the name of sport. The governance of that very sport has an opportunity to restore it’s credibility or to allow it to remain a tarnished product.

  33. OnandOnandOnand says:

    Jean,

    Sorry we have not corresponded apart, possibly, from the Mouldmaster episode when I detected a smacking for me.

    Please post. You have the knack of grounding some of the posters on here. You wear your heart on your sleeve and challenge us to explain things that you don’t understand and get us to “cut the crap”. Be assured, despite some obvious lustings for you from Wobbly, (and a few others) your “non-expert” views often expose more truths than the Big Brains achieve

  34. Corsica says:

    OnandOnandOnand on 05/12/2011 at 12:36 am said:
    Corsica

    Sorry, I didn’t realise you were being serious. Given my earlier postings about the lack of board meetings as evidenced by Greig and McLelland, I thought you would have realised that the idea of Wee Craigie having board meetings was a non-starter. I have no idea why you would spend a grand buying shares when you can pick them up for buttons but I suppose a fool and his money are soon parted
    ****************
    I was being serious when I talked about buying shares to get at info. I was joking about spending a grand.

    If CW is not having board meetings then he is breaking the law (again). That is where I am going with this.

    I really don’t think there was any need for the last comment, was there? I am not a fool which is why I can afford to buy shares in RFC!

  35. OnandOnandOnand says:

    Corsica

    Which law is CW breaking?

  36. Corsica says:

    OnandOnandOnand on 05/12/2011 at 1:03 am said:

    That’s what I’m trying to ascertain.

    If he is not following M&A then Companies Act 2006 to be precise but he may also be in breach of code of corporate governance, FSA regulations, etc.

  37. Boscobhoy says:

    Gents,

    Regarding rumour from FF of RFC trying to seek the services/appoint one of the ‘big 5’. There is no ‘big 5’; there was a ‘ big or fat 5’ but with the demise of Arthur Andersen there is now only the so called ‘big 4’.

    RFC in their current form would struggle to get through the client acceptance for these companies. One thing for sure they would not put their name to a set of accounts without covering off all of the issues. They are well aware of companie sthat try to trade off their PI/ deep pockets.

  38. OnandOnandOnand says:

    Feck, just read that last post. I sound like Adam….

    Much as I like Adam, and admire his indefatigability, I don’t seek to justify this regime in any way.

    Corsica, my last comment was made most sincerely x

  39. duggie73 says:

    There’s a better angle on this clip, its under the 1st post on the page, so let’s try again.
    Is it possible to get a universal consensus that Aluko was a cheating barsteward for the penalty?
    http://kerrydalestreet.co.uk/topic/8610417/143/

    For ease of response, “no” is spelt n o
    “yes” is spelt y e s

    Can we leave all accusations of mental illness on my part until after posting an opinion about what exactly we’re looking at in the clip?
    Thanks for your time.

  40. StevieBC says:

    OnandOnandOnand says:
    04/12/2011 at 11:16 pm

    Greig and McLelland resigned because there were no board meetings, well, none they were invited to
    ==================
    Without wishing to sound like a broken record: with his global business acumen and experience, John McLelland should have resigned years ago from RFC. There has to be a story there – IMO.

  41. StevieBC says:

    Barney says:
    04/12/2011 at 7:07 pm
    Rumour on Follow Follow via KDS re Accounts
    “approaches have been made to each of the big 5 accountancy firms, and so far none will take them on.
    He understands that one is reconsidering but there is a “problem” over asset transfer and where funding reserves are to be within the balance sheet and another issue over amortisation values. ”
    Poster also says that GT have refused to sign them off.
    ========================
    If the MBB gets one of the top 4 to audit RFC accounts, I will change my name by deed poll to “Mr. The Motherwell Born Billiionaire”.

    He will go ‘shopping’ to find either a small audit firm to sign off, [think Bernie Madoff], or he will not obtain sign-off before an insolvency event.

    A Commenter has since referred to RFC as “toxic” and I fully concur.

  42. StevieBC says:

    corsica says:
    04/12/2011 at 11:11 pm


    Therefore if a friendly RFC shareholder was to request and get this info, we might shed a whole new light on proceedings (they could use whistle-blowing rights to protect themselves)….
    Alternatively, someone could buy a share. Hmm….
    =================
    I do not have a specific legal background, but I cannot accept that the MBB can simply continue with his ‘expected’ plans. Could small shareholders – if they had the motivation – not claim that the MBB’s actions amount to discrimination/disadvantage on the Minority ?

    As the Chief Exec. and majority shareholder – could the MBB’s actions not be curtailed/frozen pending a civil action claiming that he is potentially/allegedly defrauding Minority Shareholders ?
    [Apologies if this has been covered earlier, but only been able to skim the Comments in last few days.]

    Or is the cost of this type of action simply prohibitive – or I could simply be way off the mark ?

  43. kotton says:

    lol to sleepy to spell

  44. stunney says:

    Couple of small observations regarding financial statements:

    1) It is possible to enhance a company’s cash flow figure by, inter alia, showing an increase in creditors. This can be done by the simple expedient of not paying them. I would not be shocked to learn that this is an expedient of which Craig Whyte is enamoured. I note that for the 12 months to 30 June 2011 (i.e. mostly before his reign), there was such an increase of 2.933m. One can only wonder what will appear in that line for the current financial year under the stabilising tutelage—or otherwise—of the man’s financial management, business methods, and, er, tradecraft.

    2) Professional accountancy standards insist on a profit and loss statement and a balance sheet, not just a cash flow statement, for good reasons. In particular it is judged to satisfy more adequately the goal of providing a true and fair, hence more accurate picture of a company’s financial position than would be suggested by a cash flow statement on its own, whatever what one might call barrack room accountants might have to say on the matter.

    With that said. in earlier comments I highlighted the importance of European monies for Rangers last season, and speculated on the potential size of the damage their loss this season would have on Rangers’ financial position and how this might threaten the club’s going concern status in the eyes of independent auditors. A further thought occurs to me, which is that a larger proportion of the revenue stream derived from participation in European competitions may well represent ‘free cash flow’—revenue that is relatively unencumbered by associated costs—when compared to other revenue streams (such as selling pies or replica kits since the supply for sale has to be purchased first). TV and UEFA prize money, by contrast, come relatively free of charge, so to speak.

    So even prescinding from P & L aspects and just focusing for the moment on cash flow, the implications of Rangers’ failures in Europe this season should not be sniffed at. Laughed at, possibly, but not sniffed at..

  45. Regarding the rumour that Rangers have spoken to “the Big 5” accounting firms (leaving aside the fact that there are only four of them), I have not heard anything to this effect.

    It sounds like a guess that becomes a rumour. That Rangers have not have an auditor sign on their books makes it pretty obvious that they might be speaking to other accountants. However, the odds of Rangers / Whyte wanting a major firm is very low. He will want a small “maleable” firm for whom the fee will be a sizeable part of their annual earnings. With £45k budgeted for auditors last year (and almost all of this amount will already be due to GT), Rangers will not have much available to spend.

    The cash available from Rangers will not come close to that required to get a major international firm to take on the risk. If Rangers are to engage a new firm, I would expect that it would be a long-practitioner or similar.

    However, to deal with the specific rumour: “He understands that one is reconsidering but there is a “problem” over asset transfer and where funding reserves are to be within the balance sheet and another issue over amortisation values.” – sorry but that does not ring true.

    What “asset transfer”?
    What “funding reserves”?
    Amortisation values?
    The accounts which were passed to me a couple of months ago tie in closely with the ones Whyte has produced. They do make sense. Unless there has been a massive accounting fraud at RFC for several years (and I do not believe that there has- other than the well documented issues about asset valuation), there is nothing in the current accounts that would require special accounting for an “asset transfer”.

    As for the creation of a reserve for future liabilities (presumably the tax bill), Rangers cannot pay the tax on last month’s wages let alone create a reserve for future liabilities. I could see a diligent auditor insisting a condition of a clean audit (i.e. no modified/qualified opinion on going concern) that funds be invested by the owner to cover the bill. However, that conversation would have taken about 20 minutes at most. I find it hard to believe that the issue received serious consideration by either side.

    Amortisation? Rangers (and football clubs) accounting for the writedown of player asset values has been established for years. Trying to change them now in the middle of real problems would be crazy talk. Through the fakery of previous valuations of Ibrox, Rangers do not have a balance sheet problem- they have a cash flow problem. Shuffling asset values around does not generate any new cash.

  46. stunney says:
    05/12/2011 at 5:56 am (Edit)
    ________________________________________
    Whyte did produce all 3 financial statements: P&L; balance sheet; and cash flow.

    Your post seems to imply that something was missing? Or did I interpret your wrongly?

    I think the statements produced will be consistent with Rangers’ previous accounting standards. There will be little or nothing significant in the numbers produced to date that would prevent an auditor from signing them.

    The issues as mentioned before are likely to be the contingent liability (not that big of a deal given the publicity that is already out there) and most of all the modified/qualified opinion regarding RFC as a going concern.

  47. Lord Wobbly says:

    OnandOnandOnand says:
    05/12/2011 at 12:57 am
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    Isn’t that a different Jean? I think the one you refer to was ‘Jean’, whereas the one you have replied to is ‘jean’. I think.

    OnandOnandOnand says:
    05/12/2011 at 12:14 am
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    I don’t wish to seem ungrateful but, I believe Corsica would make better use of your shares than I ever could. I thank you for the offer. I think I’ll pass. All yours Corsica.

  48. duggie73 says:

    Adam says:
    05/12/2011 at 8:23 am
    Given that you posted a set of statistics about refereeing performances, thought you might want to consider that the foul commited against the Rangers player in the clip went unpunished by any card.

    Further clear evidence of no refereeing bias towards Rangers in your view?

  49. Adam says:

    Given that I was answering a point about referee bias raised by someone else, I could probably do the same again here but what’s the point.

    Players dive. Players of all teams. Sometimes you are denied stonewallers (see last week) sometimes you get ones you shouldn’t.

    So if you want to keep trolling about this one then troll about last weeks and about dives from other players yesterday and the day before and the week before that.

    Then it saves it from looking like you have an agenda.

%d bloggers like this: