boss

Excellent summation.

Thank you for finally agreeing.

I'm with you on all of that. Nothing in any of my accounts posts should infer that I trust anyone involved.

Close. Not saying the numbers will work out like this, but perfectly possible. £11m in the bank + £10m tickets/hospitality (*1) + £9m other income (*2) - £30m costs (*3) + £5m 2014/15 season ticket money (*4) = £5m in the bank at 30 June 2014 *1 giving a total of £14.5m compared to £13.2m *2 compared to £6m *3 compared to £34m *4 compared to £4.5m

I've got work to do

If only it was true you could be delighted rather than delightful.

Did it though? Paul Murray CA and others seem to have missed the relevance of merger accounting.

Exactly that. £7.7m of share capital was paid in by 31 August 2012, months before the IPO. That's what funded the club in the early days, not the IPO money. And those of us that know where to look knew about it. (Actually, it was freely available and not hidden.) So you can either say that this money paid for buying the club or paid for the initial trading losses. Either way, certain investors did not get the free ride that McCollco would have you believe (although Charlie did all right for himself).

Perhaps: - lower loss this season - break even next season - new share issue (primarily fans) for the season back in top tier ("player investment, overhaul them, blah blah...") ?

From the accounts: "Profits from the sponsorship business unit are expected to increase in season 2013/14 by more than 70% on season 2012/13."

Page 27 answers these questions: http://www.rangers.co.uk/images/staticcontent/documents/AnnualReport2013.pdf

That's the whole point - this season we have Puma, Blackthorn, Sports Direct/retail, other sponsorship deals etc. There is likely growth across a number of income streams.

No, your numbers don't add up. Put (very) simply if we half our losses (i.e. say £7m next year) that would eat into the £11m we have in the bank. (You can adjust to reflect cashflows rather than profit but you end up at the same place.)

You sure the £8m non-IPO share money didn't pay for it?

You seem fixated by some mythical "12 month rule". None exists. I can't be bothered explaining to you again.

I don't think the directors are allowed to make such profit forecasts per stock exchange rules, although I agree we would all be interested in them.

...and: "The auditor should evaluate management's assessment of the entity's ability to continue as a going concern." So management need to look at the foreseeable future, not necessarily just 12 months (and in the case of a loss-making football club with lots of uncertainties, definitely not just 12 months!), and the auditors need to evaluate that assessment. You're up a gumtree without a paddle on this mixed-metaphorical exercise.

Interim accounts for 6 months to 31 December 2013 will be issued around February which will help us see the current picture.

Revenue up, say, £5m. Costs down, say, £2m. There's half the difference. Player sales would be needed to take us towards break even (Wallace, Macleod, Law?).

We're not. Board and management team costs are too high. But we also employ 146 non football staff included in that £10m.

Wow, hard question!, by 30 June 2014 I'd go for at least £4m-£6m subject to transfers in/out and anything else coming out the woodwork. But that's a wild guess without far more info!

Oh, we have a smoking gun now, do we? That's not at all what page 36 says. And the author hasn't noticed that in addition to the IPO money we had £8m more in share capital. He needs to try harder.

Sorry, I should have used a smiley. We spent £14m more than our income. Wages, including management team and directors, were too high and income streams were as low as they will ever be. We also have costs that won't recur and cost savings where we'll only see the full effect in this year.

It would be possible IMO but only if we get offers in for players - say Wallace, Macleod, Law - that could just about see us break even. Unlikely perhaps.

Direct from your link: "When assessing whether the going concern assumption is appropriate, management takes into account all available information about the future, which is at least, but not limited to, twelve months from the balance sheet date. The degree of consideration depends on the facts in each case." My emboldenment. This is no "12 month rule". If the board's 5 year plan (to which they refer in the accounts and therefore must be made available to the auditors) indicate that we will run out of money in a few years, that is absolutely relevant to the going concern consideration even when it's outside 12 months.