“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. gunnerb says:

    paul says:
    04/12/2011 at 7:49 pm

    We know GT have not signed off, what we don’t know is why they signed off the previous accounts when this tax problem was known but not quantified or qualified.
    GT could also find themselves having to answer some very searching questions.
    _____________________________________________________________________

    Think GT are safe with regard to previous accounts as they had Thornhills unambiguous (aye right) confirmation that Rangers had a good case against the big ‘un. Asset valuation is less clear but I think they are still ok.

  2. Hugh McEwan says:

    paul says:
    04/12/2011 at 7:49 pm

    We know GT have not signed off, what we don’t know is why they signed off the previous accounts when this tax problem was known but not quantified or qualified.
    GT could also find themselves having to answer some very searching questions.

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

    Maybe they agreed that Rangers were likely to see the year out last time, as they had the money to do it.

    This year Craig Whyte has announced a large shortfall to the World.

    Perhaps this has raised going concern issues, even before the tribunal rules.

  3. Northbhoy says:

    Apologies if this has been covered already but work commitments have meant that I forever seem to be playing catch-up on here… and double those apologies for straying off topic, but it fits in with this particular update on RTC’s blog.

    I HATE unattributable quotes and the like in the press – it’s not only a pet hate of mine, it’s been a blight on the integrity of journalists for years now. The Scottish Police introduced the Scottish Intelligence Database circa 2003 and I’ve been advocating the use of a simlar system in the media ever since then (even writing to my MP and MSP with little effect). For those not in the know, it works thus;

    1. MBB’s house is broken into and his car keys are stolen; thieves make off with his Kia Picanto
    2. The Kia Picanto is driven off to Soapy Soutar’s Garage to be stripped down
    3. Fat Bob has just been laid off from Soapy’s Garage after an argument with Soapy
    4. Fat Bob tells PC Murdoch about MBB’s Kia Picanto being in Soapy’s Garage
    5. PC Murdoch puts the information into the Scottish Intelligence Database along with a grading that reflects the credibility of the information/informant
    6. The information is then sanitised and possibly regraded by a trained team who assess its accuracy and validity based upon the information put in by PC Murdoch (including the name etc of the source)
    7. After sanitisation, all references to Fat Bob and PC Murdoch are removed and the information can be accessed by other Police officers for the first time.
    8. The cops investigating the break-in to MBB’s house get the intelligence re Soapy’s Garage and go to the Sheriff for a warrant.
    9. The warrant is executed and MBB’s beloved Kia Picanto is recovered before it reaches chop-shop heaven
    10. Soapy Soutar goes to court for reset and when cops give their evidence, they just say “Our intell came from the Scottish Intelligence Database” and that’s good enough for the Sheriff presiding. Neither Fat Bob nor PC Murdoch ever have to go anywhere near court, otherwise if PC Murdoch is involved, he would be obliged to name his source if asked under oath.

    Now why can’t the MSM work their sources on a similar principal? Okay, Keith Jackson might miss out on a scoop because his source gives him the “insider information”, but instead his good mate Hugh Keevins writes the trailblazing story (if such a thing exists any more). Some other time when Hugh gets the inside craic on the colour of Neil Lennon’s underwear, he puts it into the media equivalent of the S.I.D. and his mate Keith writes the story. If the Database is maintained by an organisation headed by an independent ombudsman, the credibility of the MSM is restored overnight and the next time you read “an insider said” you’ll know its credible information rather than a licence for the hack to make up whatever he/she likes.

    Perhaps Paul McC or anyone else with a decent legal background might have thoughts on where this might fall down..?

  4. Adam says:

    Barney on 04/12/2011 at 7:07 pm said:
    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.
    ————————————
    The above would suggest that we actually SENT the unaudited accounts to the 5 of them.

    Despite my views on whyte, I very much doubt it.

  5. Barney says:

    Northbhoy says:
    04/12/2011 at 8:04 pm

    1. MBB’s house is broken into and his car keys are stolen; thieves make off with his Kia Picanto
    —————————-
    but he lives in a castle 🙂

  6. What’s the penalty if you don’t publish your audited accounts and hold an AGM on time.I know companies change their accounting year but surely you have to give notice of this.Can you really just go to Companies house 3 weeks before your deadline and announce that your changing your financial year?.

  7. Barney says:

    Adam says:
    04/12/2011 at 8:07 pm

    The above would suggest that we actually SENT the unaudited accounts to the 5 of them.

    Despite my views on whyte, I very much doubt it.
    —————————–
    If it were anyone other than Craig Whyte, I would agree Adam, but it’s difficult to rule out anything with him.

  8. Northbhoy says:

    Barney says:
    04/12/2011 at 8:08 pm
    ===================
    I think the accepted terminology is PMSL 😀

  9. abrahamtoast says:

    Adam, I don’t think the earlier poster on KDS/FF necessarily meant that the accounts had been sent to each of the big 5. I took it to indicate that the big 5 were not keen to get involved with RFC at all, not that they refused to sign off this particular set of accounts.

    Of course, coming from where it did, it’s probably p*sh!

  10. Blankety Blank Whyte Cheque Book but where's the pen? says:

    I’m sure I read from one of our regular posters that in order to change an accounting period a business has to give notice of next years accounting period, not simply decide it’s not loooking too good this month so lets delay by 3 months……

    I have no idea of the legalities but it would make sense, otherwise surely businesses could put off not so good results and avoid market value of their shares being impacted?

  11. Hugh McEwan says:

    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.

  12. gunnerb says:

    Northbhoy says:
    04/12/2011 at 8:04 pm
    _________________________________
    So a conviction is possible without having to face the accuser/witness in court ? Jings I never knew that Northboy (no sarcasm genuinely did not know)

  13. corsica says:

    As I posted last night, it is possible to change your accounting year at a late stage particularly where there has been a takeover and the new owners need more time to restructure the business. They can also cite unknown/recently surfaced issues or fundamental uncertainties in the business’ environment. It is generally not encouraged but it is unusual to withold permission.

    Having said that, it is usually for legitimate reasons and a reasonable and coherent case has to be made. CW’s difficulty will be that his card is marked and the authorities will be keeping an eye on what he is up to to ensure there is no fraud or impropriety. Doesn’t mean they will stop it; just means they will know what he is up to.

    If he goes for it, it will be on the grounds of fundamental uncertainty and/or recently revealed problems; the tax cases (big and small) could give him this, but I think the authorities would, in the circumstances, probably say “tough, you should have sorted this out during due diligence”.

    I also posted last night that, as a plc, RFC must hold an AGM if they wish to change auditors before the auditor’s term is up. Last year’s AGM will have passed a resolution appointing an auditor (Grant Thornton, presumably) so to change this would require a further AGM which would require a formal notice to be sent to all members/shareholders giving them 21 days notice of said meeting. Easily enough to answer that one – ask any RFC shareholder if such notice has been sent out…Adam?

  14. stunney says:

    If you take the figures for the 12 months to 30 June 2011 and project similar for the 12 months to 30 June 2012 but without most of last season’s European revenues and with paying the wee tax bill, you’re looking at a loss somewhere north of 15 million times what Lord Craigie of Below-the-Radar paid for Lord Dodgy of Skintmint’s Rangers shareholding. With those European revenues and without paying the wee tax bill, the club made the tiny profit of 76 thousand pounds last time round.

    The auditors will want to know how that loss is going to be financed as a condition of approving going concern status. And that’s before we get into the big tax contingent liability.

    Of course, Whyte didn’t get to be a billionaire by not knowing how to turnaround distressed companies, as the following success stories demonstrate:

    1. He’s not telling Roddy Forsyth when asked to name specific examples.
    2. Keith Jackson of the Daily Record says his wealth is off the scale.
    3. Er…
    4. That’s it.

    So, wi’ that kind of money and that kind of media support behind him, the Lanarkshire-bred tycoon will have auditors lining up tae sign aff oan ra finanshuls, timmy!

  15. corsica says:

    Forgot to add, just for clarity:

    The financial year end has already passed, the deadline for filing of said accounts has not. You have to make request before the filing deadline.

    I have used it in the past where we took over a property company in a very quick deal and did not conduct due diligence. Admittedly, never heard of anyone doing it with only three weeks to go!

  16. Hugh McEwan says:

    corsica says:
    04/12/2011 at 8:31 pm

    ———————————–

    In essence, they could request that the accounting period becomes End September 2011 (Rather than June).

    Meaning that they do not need to prepare audited accounts until March 2013 (6 months after the end of the new 15 month period), which would tie in with the SFA deadline for a European Licence.

    They would have to do that before 31st December though.

    Is that about it.

  17. stunney says:

    Katie, a cordial welcome.

  18. MERIDIAN says:

    http:\\joelbergsma\images\panda

    So tell me – i’ve paid for your flight all the way from china and even allowed you to bring along a burd – how do we get these accounts signed off ?

  19. Blankety Blank Whyte Cheque Book but where's the pen? says:

    Hugh McEwan says:
    04/12/2011 at 8:35 pm

    corsica says:
    04/12/2011 at 8:31 pm

    ———————————–

    In essence, they could request that the accounting period becomes End September 2011 (Rather than June).

    Meaning that they do not need to prepare audited accounts until March 2013 (6 months after the end of the new 15 month period), which would tie in with the SFA deadline for a European Licence.

    They would have to do that before 31st December though.

    Is that about it.

    ———————————————-

    Seems awfy simple then……but why bother issuing even unaudited accounts to the big bad world if Whyte can simply nudge accounting period by a few months?

    Can it be as easy as you suggest corsica?

    Over to the more knowledgeable posters to explain….

  20. paul says:

    gunnerb says:
    04/12/2011 at 7:55 pm

    It should have been accounted for and noted as an extraordinary item with a worst case scenario. I think if it goes badly wrong GT will find themselves in deep shit, I think they will be far from all right.

  21. Northbhoy says:

    Northbhoy says:
    03/12/2011 at 1:47 pm

    Northbhoy says:
    03/12/2011 at 2:03 pm

    Northbhoy says:
    03/12/2011 at 2:11 pm

    Grrrrrrr – yet again. RTC I take it there’s no facility to prevent anyone using your moniker on here???

  22. Brogan Rogan Trevino and Hogan says:

    Good Evening all,

    can I just add a few comments to the various points made by John.

    I was recently speaking to two journalist friends of mine who are man and wife. They work for two different organisations, with one being a fairly senior Editor at one national quality paper and the other being in a senior position for a chain with a number of local titles. Neither works for a Red Top, and both know journalism as their only career.

    Both said to me that it was at this time of year when the publishers decide to close offices and make folk redundant in big numbers. It makes the run up to Christmas very stressful whether you are one of the ones that stay or whether you are one of the ones that go. You lose friends and find that your workload is simply increased.

    Journalists are not alone in feeling this pressure, nor does it explain the really poor quality of some reporting, as some reporters seem to just go along with, and even excel at the dumming down of proper news coverage.

    There will always be some good journos and some who are rubbish. Worse still are those who write and say ( on the radio ) whatever it takes to get readers or listeners irrespective of the truth.

    Like at least one other poster on here, I used to read papers from cover to cover- especially at the weekends. Now? – Well I couldn’t tell you the last time I bought a paper!

    As paper sales fall, advertising gets squeezed, and blogs like this one flourish and gain more and more followers, surely those who control newsprint can see that the public are no longer prepared tto accept lazy and trivial reporting. Blogs such as this show that the new media, dedicated to specific areas of expertise and interest, bring out all sorts of different expertise and experience from some interesting commentators and contributors. To be honest, I am amazed that no one from mainstream media has, so far as I am aware, sought to contact anyone with imput into this or other blogs, where information and views which are germain to the public interest is so readily and easily available.

    Mainstream reporting and media is dying and in my view the only thing that will save it is “quality” reporting and reporters. Perhaps I am alone in that view, but if I were to make a pitch for funding for a new newspaper to Sir Alan Sugar or the Dragons in the Den then I would be pushing “quality reporting” as the market to go into.

    In the interin the sports guys could do far more to enhance or restore their reputation, and meanwhile good folk like my friends who want to do a proper job wait to find out if this is their time for the chop. Neither think they will be in Journalism in 5 years time and both wonder where people in their 50’s with 30 years experience of print journalism experience will find a job outwith that profession.

  23. Corsica says:

    Hugh McEwan on 04/12/2011 at 8:35 pm said:
    corsica says:
    04/12/2011 at 8:31 pm

    ———————————–

    Is that about it.

    **************
    Yes, that’s it. They could potentially extend financial period to 31 December or 18 months (meaning audited a/c would not be due until end-June) but that could scupper licence and they’d be stuck with that financial year-end date for 3 years!

  24. Northbhoy says:

    gunnerb says:
    04/12/2011 at 8:24 pm
    Northbhoy says:
    04/12/2011 at 8:04 pm
    _________________________________
    So a conviction is possible without having to face the accuser/witness in court ? Jings I never knew that Northboy (no sarcasm genuinely did not know)
    ===============================
    gunnerb, presumably the PF or Crown Office would have to be satisfied that the evidence was all above board before going to court, but in essence, it would work as I’ve described. Made a phone call to a mate to check my info and I’m led to believe that Polis normally go to the Fiscal first with the warrant application, and only if the PF gives the thumbs up on the basis of the application would they then approach the Sheriff.

  25. Adam says:

    stunney on 04/12/2011 at 8:30 pm said:
    If you take the figures for the 12 months to 30 June 2011 and project similar for the 12 months to 30 June 2012 but without most of last season’s European revenues and with paying the wee tax bill, you’re looking at a loss somewhere north of 15 million times what Lord Craigie of Below-the-Radar paid for Lord Dodgy of Skintmint’s Rangers shareholding. With those European revenues and without paying the wee tax bill, the club made the tiny profit of 76 thousand pounds last time round.

    —————————————–

    It’s not as simple as that though I’m afraid. There is a number of variables and unknowns. Player amortization. Interest. Total wage bill etc.

    Plus, I believe far too much weight is put on “profit” rather than cash-flow. I am on phone but from memory I am sure we had a £13 million positive cash flow. Take out the circa £18-£20 million CL money and you are looking at a like for like £5-£7 million negative before any money from Whyte and any “new” incoming and outgoing.

  26. TheBlackKnight says:

    Hugh, I believe you may have meant March 2012?

    I am led to believe if an AA01 form is submitted to Companies House prior to 31/12/2011, it allows an extension to an 18 month period. (6months addition to the existing 12 month period)

    Companies House do not necessarily have to accept this, but it is unusual not to.
    (The current investigation may have something to play in this.)

    In addition, by extending the period, the SFA may not be in a position to agree to issuing a license as the accounts may not be able to be audited in time to meet the licensing criteria.

  27. JJ says:

    Adam says:

    04/12/2011 at 8:07 pm

    Barney on 04/12/2011 at 7:07 pm said:
    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.
    ————————————
    The above would suggest that we actually SENT the unaudited accounts to the 5 of them.

    Despite my views on whyte, I very much doubt it.

    —————————————————————————————————-

    Don’t think it suggest the acounts were actually “sent”. It only mentions “approaches”.

    I work for a very large firm who get regular “approaches”. Often it’s in connection with what our fee structure is and we do need some basic information before giving an indication of what we are likely to charge.

    A look at the previous years accounts, and some searching questions by the partner who deals with such aproaches, will usually give a good enough estimate. And if there is other Group work, our fees are discounted.

    As far as Rangers is concerned, their brand is now toxic. There isn’t an accountant who does not have an idea of their main issues and they know the “going concern” will be a big problem. And, of course, they would want some (all?) fees paid up front!

    They know that any accounts they sign off will be subject to forensic scrutiny – thanks RTC!

    Accountants are searching for work, things are bad. But taking on a toxic client would be a disaster.

    My bet is that try to get a small firm, possibly a Rangers fan, to sign off. They will probably get one, but they are unlikely to have any worthwhile reputation.

  28. gunnerb says:

    Brogan Rogan Trevino and Hogan says:
    04/12/2011 at 8:46 pm

    …Neither think they will be in Journalism in 5 years time and both wonder where people in their 50′s with 30 years experience of print journalism experience will find a job outwith that profession.
    ________________________________________________________________

    A quick look at the success of this blog may give them a few pointers.

  29. Adam says:

    JJ says:
    04/12/2011 at 8:58 pm

    Don’t think it suggest the acounts were actually “sent”. It only mentions “approaches”.
    ___________________________________________________________________

    It does say though 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. ”

    There is no way a firm would be able to tell you this just from an approach.

    Like Hugh, i think its Pooh. 🙂

  30. Adam says:

    TheBlackKnight says:
    04/12/2011 at 8:57 pm
    Hugh, I believe you may have meant March 2012?

    I am led to believe if an AA01 form is submitted to Companies House prior to 31/12/2011, it allows an extension to an 18 month period. (6months addition to the existing 12 month period)
    __________________________________________________________________________

    Thats my understanding as well but I think given that they have already published unaudited accounts to 30th June 2011, it is unlikely now that they will change.

  31. Hugh McEwan says:

    Corsica says:
    04/12/2011 at 8:48 pm

    Hugh McEwan on 04/12/2011 at 8:35 pm said:
    corsica says:
    04/12/2011 at 8:31 pm

    ———————————–

    Is that about it.

    **************
    Yes, that’s it. They could potentially extend financial period to 31 December or 18 months (meaning audited a/c would not be due until end-June) but that could scupper licence and they’d be stuck with that financial year-end date for 3 years!

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

    That’s a point I never thought of.

    Are there any SFA rules that the clubs financial year must run to end June. That would stop them being changed, Shirley.

  32. stunney says:

    Adam:

    “It’s not as simple as that though I’m afraid. There is a number of variables and unknowns.”

    Indeed. Last season Rangers won the League Cup. This season they were knocked out by Falkirk. Interest costs might be quite a bit different this year. Etc.

    And we haven’t had the winter transfer window yet.

    I still think the auditors will be wanting to know how potential operating deficits caused by the loss of CL and Europa monies and having to pay the wee tax bill are going to be financed. And with CW proudly proclaiming it’s not via bank facilities, I can’t blame them.

  33. TheBlackKnight says:

    I thought the unaudited accounts were posted with Companies House? Like many on here, I am sure they are freely available.

  34. Adam says:

    stunney says:
    04/12/2011 at 9:07 pm
    Adam:

    “It’s not as simple as that though I’m afraid. There is a number of variables and unknowns.”

    Indeed. Last season Rangers won the League Cup. This season they were knocked out by Falkirk. Interest costs might be quite a bit different this year. Etc.

    And we haven’t had the winter transfer window yet.

    I still think the auditors will be wanting to know how potential operating deficits caused by the loss of CL and Europa monies and having to pay the wee tax bill are going to be financed. And with CW proudly proclaiming it’s not via bank facilities, I can’t blame them.
    ____________________________________________________________

    Not disagreeing that it will all have to be laid bare, simply that notional £15m losses on the basis of x-y doesnt necessarily add up and are not always the most important aspect.

  35. JJ says:

    Adam says:

    04/12/2011 at 9:03 pm

    JJ says:
    04/12/2011 at 8:58 pm

    Don’t think it suggest the acounts were actually “sent”. It only mentions “approaches”.
    ___________________________________________________________________

    It does say though 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. ”

    There is no way a firm would be able to tell you this just from an approach.

    Like Hugh, i think its Pooh.

    ————————————————————————————————-

    If you re-read my post you will see that

    1. a look at the previous accounts, and
    2. searching questions by an experienced partner

    will often flush out issues.

    Funding, asset tranfers and amortisation are fairly basic and general points and not too diffilcult to identify as real issues. (Yes, I accept, more difficult to quantify, resolve and properly deal with in the accounts!).

    Mind you, I think there are bigger issues for an accountant – like “going concern” and actually getting paid!

    No doubt we’ll find out in due course.

  36. Adam says:

    In the last 6 years, Rangers have recorded a £12m profit and a £7m profit yet for me the far most successful years trading was 09/10 when we recorded £4m and wiped out almost all of our trade debt.

    Its easy to post nice profits all the while your trade and other debt is spiralling.

  37. Lord Wobbly says:

    Northbhoy says:
    04/12/2011 at 8:45 pm
    Northbhoy says:
    03/12/2011 at 1:47 pm
    Northbhoy says:
    03/12/2011 at 2:03 pm
    Northbhoy says:
    03/12/2011 at 2:11 pm
    Grrrrrrr – yet again. RTC I take it there’s no facility to prevent
    anyone using your moniker on here???
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    Perhaps one could be geodetic and the other magnetic? 😀

  38. TheBlackKnight says:

    Am I missing something here?

    The latest accounts are for the period to 30 June 2011 (year end)
    If an extension to the current period is given (6months from 31 December 2011 required by Companies House to 30 June 2012) it will mean that the accounts have remained unaudited for 24 months.

    Has the horse already bolted?

  39. corsica says:

    TheBlackKnight says:

    04/12/2011 at 9:07 pm

    I thought the unaudited accounts were posted with Companies House? Like many on here, I am sure they are freely available.

    *******************************************

    Unaudited accounts are not posted to Companies House. You submit your annual return and your audited accounts by the due date which, in this case, is 31 December 2011. You can extend financial period at any point up to that due date but not beyond it. As I said, I’ve never heard of anyone doing it this late and I would expect Companies House to ask questions.

    Unaudited accounts would only be released to the market to give people an indication of where the company stands (basically, like issuing interim financial results) and usually to encourage up the share price. Given RFC’s lack of a finance director, it would be highly unusual to release unaudited figures to the market as it means nobody who is actually competent has signed them off as a true record!

    And I stand corrected, it is now 5 years before you can change your accounting date again although there are exceptions (including being a company in administration!).

  40. paul says:

    What a lot of people are missing is that these latest raw accounts are those of the previous regime, unless Whyte managed to wreak total havoc in a heartbeat.

  41. corsica says:

    Last one from me…

    to change the financial year also requires an AGM so I would have thought they have missed the boat now looking at timescales: 21 days notice, submission of relevant form (AA01)

  42. TheBlackKnight says:

    Oooops! Thanks Corsica, should have been Plus Markets

  43. Katie says:

    Thank you stunney

  44. Private Land says:

    Lord Wobbly says:

    04/12/2011 at 9:15 pm

    Northbhoy says:
    04/12/2011 at 8:45 pm
    Northbhoy says:
    03/12/2011 at 1:47 pm
    Northbhoy says:
    03/12/2011 at 2:03 pm
    Northbhoy says:
    03/12/2011 at 2:11 pm
    Grrrrrrr – yet again. RTC I take it there’s no facility to prevent
    anyone using your moniker on here???
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    Perhaps one could be geodetic and the other magnetic?
    _______________________________________________________________________

    … and apparently a sudden and catastrophic change to Southbhoy could be on the cards at any time now …. 🙂

  45. TheBlackKnight says:

    corsica on 04/12/2011 at 9:29 pm said:
    “…….to change the financial year also requires an AGM so I would have thought they have missed the boat now looking at timescales: 21 days notice, submission of relevant form (AA01)”

    Great point Corsica! In addition, if it were even timeously possible, the filing (registration) of the AA01 does not guarantee it’s approval.

  46. JJ says:

    paul says:

    04/12/2011 at 9:29 pm

    What a lot of people are missing is that these latest raw accounts are those of the previous regime, unless Whyte managed to wreak total havoc in a heartbeat.

    ——————————————————————————————————–

    I suspect that it’s the oxygen of publicity which has scared off firms.

    Thanks to the exposure of sites such as this (well, mainly this one), there is no hiding place for the slight of hand previously utilised. (valuation of Ibrox/Murray Park and the the “going concern issue, to name but two)

  47. easyJambo says:

    Adam – you are correct that a positive cashflow of £13M was reported in the accounts. Taking away the CL/EL income of £19M leaves a deficit of around £6M. Additional cashflow considerations for this season will include a further fall in ST sales, the loss of matchday income for the Euro ties and the various arrestments and tax penalties. I’d guess that without further intervention the defecit could be doubled to around £12M, but will in actuality be reduced somewhat by delayed payment of bills. CW forecast a shortfall of around £10M. I don’t think that would be too far off the mark, before any cash is raised in the January transfer window.

  48. paulmac says:

    corsica says:
    04/12/2011 at 8:26 pm

    I also posted last night that, as a plc, RFC must hold an AGM if they wish to change auditors before the auditor’s term is up. Last year’s AGM will have passed a resolution appointing an auditor (Grant Thornton, presumably) so to change this would require a further AGM which would require a formal notice to be sent to all members/shareholders giving them 21 days notice of said meeting. Easily enough to answer that one – ask any RFC shareholder if such notice has been sent out…Adam?
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    Taken from Companies house….an interesting set of requirments…

    10. Can a company remove an auditor?

    Yes. The members of a company may remove an auditor from office at any time during their term of office. They or the directors must give 28 days notice of their intention to put to a general meeting a resolution to remove the auditor. The company must send a copy of the notice to the auditor, who then has the right to make a written response and require that the company sends it to the company’s members, and to speak at the meeting where the resolution is to be considered.

    The company must deliver a form AA03 at Companies House within 14 days of the resolution being passed to remove the auditor.

    Although a company may remove an auditor from office at any time, the auditor may be entitled to compensation or damages for termination of appointment.

    Alternatively a company may decide not to re-appoint the auditor for a further term.

    For a private company, the deemed reappointment of an auditor may be prevented by the members by ordinary resolution. It can also be prevented if the company is notified to this effect by members representing at least 5% of the company’s voting rights. The notices must be received before the end of the accounting reference period preceding the deemed reappointment.

    11. What must an auditor do when he ceases to hold office?

    If an auditor ceases for any reason to hold office, he must deposit a statement at the company’s registered office. If the company is not quoted on a stock exchange, the statement should set out any circumstances connected with his ceasing to hold office that he considers should be brought to the attention of the members and creditors of the company. If the company is quoted, he must set out the circumstances whether or not he considers that they need to be brought to the attention of the members and creditors of the company.

    •if the circumstances are set out in the statement, the company must send a copy of the statement to all the members of the company unless it makes a successful application to the court to stop this. If the auditor does not receive notification of an application to the court within 21 days of depositing the statement with the company, the auditor must within a further 7 days send a copy of the statement to Companies House for the company’s public record;
    •if (in the case of an unquoted company) the circumstances are not set out in the statement, the auditor must deposit a statement with the company to that effect. The company does not have to circulate this statement to the members.
    Also, where the auditor resigns or is removed from office, there are obligations on the auditor and the company to notify the “appropriate audit authority”. There is more detailed guidance on these provisions on the Financial Reporting Council website.

  49. paul says:

    JJ says:
    04/12/2011 at 9:47 pm

    The bottom line is simple, creative accounting didn’t arrive with Whyte.

  50. the Don Dionisio says:

    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?

%d bloggers like this: