Rangers shares suspended from trading on PLUS

[offminorthreat 1,467]

What you are saying doesn't entirely add up though, or does it? The Tax Case is not current to these sets of accounts. It is confusing that the failure to audit, the suspension from PLUS, and the tax case have all been bundled into one intention. I think the statement is not very clear, and doesn't quite add up either.

it its current to these accounts as I understand it. The period of time that the tax should have been paid is not relevant, the relevant thing for the accounts is that as it stands today, therefore is a potential/contingent liability that would have to be paid. The auditors would be sitting there saying to the directors something like "guys, we can sign off the accounts right now, but we are auditors, we need to take the most conservative view, which means you owe HMRC the full amount, which means you have debts you cannot pay, which means the company is not a going concern, which means the accounts are 'qualified' for this". If that happens, the directors have to immediately place the company in to administration or risk criminal charges. Or...they can do what they are doing now, which its wait for clarity, and hopefully avoid administration.

[Chef 436]

Can someone please enlighten me as to what this means as tweeted by Christopher Harvey

Rangers suspended from trading on PLUS stock exchange for not publishing their accounts.

On to your next issue mclachlan, sure you will find summit, maybe a bit more explosive next time and get the reaction you crave

[boss 1,941]

We can sell players but we can't buy them

Ooooh

Simply rubbish. Don't post such unfounded crap.

[Turnberry18 3,204]

The tax case is FUNDAMENTAL to these set of accounts. I appreciate you're not an accountant and won't necessarily appreciate why this is so, but it most certainly is the case. Once you accept my advice on this, the position regarding late accounts, suspension from PLUS etc becomes easier to understand.

Explain why they are fundamental.

[offminorthreat 1,467]

Sorry on phone and it is 1am here in Oz, that only made half sense. Fkn touch screens!

[offminorthreat 1,467]

The tax case is FUNDAMENTAL to these set of accounts. I appreciate you're not an accountant and won't necessarily appreciate why this is so, but it most certainly is the case. Once you accept my advice on this, the position regarding late accounts, suspension from PLUS etc becomes easier to understand.

Agreed. I could write 1000 words on why but it is too tchnical and I am on my phone.

[gunslinger 270]

not long to get them sorted or no uefa licence for next year.

[Turnberry18 3,204]

not long to get them sorted or no uefa licence for next year.

What do you read into that statement?

[gunslinger 270]

A further level of scrutiny of this chairman being removed is never going to be good news.

have to agree. though I would widen it to any chairman our last was dodgey as fuck.

[gunslinger 270]

What do you read into that statement?

nothing its just a statement of fact. it is 3 months away but they have had 6 month to produce these after all.

[boss 1,941]

Explain why they are fundamental.

Okay, in simple terms:

- should the accounts at 30 June 2011 show a liability of £50m to HMRC or £0 to HMRC?

The answer depends on the view taken on the tax case (or its actual outcome once known) and it is irrelevant that the final position will not be known until after 30 June 2011.

At one extreme, we would have a £50m liability, our balance sheet would be insolvent, the directors and auditors couldn't sign off on going concern, and we'd go into administration.

At the other extreme, we would have no liability, our balance sheet would be positive, the directors and auditors could sign off on going concern, and we'd be 'business as usual'.

These are fundamentally different positions which are affected by the outcome of the tax case.

[gogzy 31,195]

We can sell players but we can't buy them

Ooooh

bullshit

how you get off with posting so much bullshit on this website i will never know, literally one of the worst posters on the whole board.

[rokcy 4]

Getting ready to go private, we may well never see another AGM.

 maintain the Club’s listing on PLUS Markets for at least a year from the date of the Acquisition.

As a keen Rangers supporter I look forward to helping the Club secure its future as a leading force in

Scottish and European football.

Yours sincerely

Craig Whyte

Chairman

[JRodgA2k8 542]

The title really should read Suspended from Trading Shares as to not allow the doom mongers to come in and panic totally.

We will still Trade in terms of the business as we always have but with no shares being sold/bought.

Blown out of all proportion.

[Right_To_Censor 1,951]

Simply rubbish. Don't post such unfounded crap.

You do know I was just fanning the flames for the doom merchants

[Sicknote 26]

Okay, in simple terms:

- should the accounts at 30 June 2011 show a liability of £50m to HMRC or £0 to HMRC?

The answer depends on the view taken on the tax case (or its actual outcome once known) and it is irrelevant that the final position will not be known until after 30 June 2011.

At one extreme, we would have a £50m liability, our balance sheet would be insolvent, the directors and auditors couldn't sign off on going concern, and we'd go into administration.

At the other extreme, we would have no liability, our balance sheet would be positive, the directors and auditors could sign off on going concern, and we'd be 'business as usual'.

These are fundamentally different positions which are affected by the outcome of the tax case.

Would our lack of a credit facility not also be a considering factor. What I mean is, even without the taxcase we are trading at a loss, especially without Euro monies.

[skinnymate1690 665]

I genuinely have not really idea what's going on because i cba reading through the whole thing

So a one word answer please , is it as bad as it sounds ?

[disgruntled_bear 157]

Rangers suspended from stock exchange for failing to file accounts

Trading in shares in the Ibrox club on the stock exchange was halted at noon on Monday.

Shares in Rangers have been suspended from the stock exchange over their failure to file the club's audited accounts on time.

The Ibrox club was suspended from trading at noon on Monday by Plus stock exchange, where Rangers trade.

Plus confirmed to STV the suspension was because of Rangers failing to file their audited accounts by Monday’s deadline.

A statement from the Rangers FC PLC board, released through the stock exchange, said: "As a result of the delay in publishing its audited accounts to June 30, 2011, the board announce that the company's shares have been suspended from trading on Plus pursuant to Rule 51.

"The delay has been caused as a result of finalising the audit, which the board believe will be complete on or around January 31, 2012. The delay in finalising the audit is principally related to the ongoing HMRC tax tribunal.

"The board of the Rangers Football Club plc is currently considering the merit of maintaining its listing on the Plus market after May 6, 2012, being the date 12 months following the acquisition of the 85.3 per cent holding of the company by The Rangers FC Group Limited.

"The directors of the Rangers Football Club PLC accept responsibility for this announcement."

James Godwin, director of regulation for Plus, said: "I can confirm that The Rangers Football Club plc has been suspended from trading on the Plus stock exchange for breaches of the Plus Rules for Issuers.

"As a company incorporated in the UK, Rangers FC is required to file audited statutory accounts within six months of its year end, June 30, 2011.

"Rangers FC has failed to do so and is in breach of Rule 51 of the Plus rules for issuers.

"The Plus Stock Exchange is also currently conducting an investigation into the circumstances under which Craig Whyte's seven year disqualification from acting as a director in 2000 were not disclosed at the time of his appointment to the board of Rangers FC on May 6, 2011."

After the announcement to the stock exchange on Monday, the club announced that it is currently considering removing its listing with Plus after May 6, one year to the date that Craig Whyte took over at Ibrox.

Chairman Mr Whyte said: "Given the structure of the shareholding in the club, there is very little, if any, tangible benefit for the club to be a listed company.

"The fact that the club has a majority shareholder controlling more than 80% means there is very little trading in shares.

"In reality, a public listing means more bureaucracy. Rangers does not need to remain a listed company in order for people to buy and sell their individual shares and since becoming chairman I have always questioned what is really being achieved with a public listing.

"Whether or not we are a listed company, accounts will still be published and there will still be a shareholders' AGM. All shareholders would be able to hold the directors to account."

Rangers' ability to buy and/or sell players in the January transfer window is not directly affected by the announcement.

Scottish Premier League rules state a club will only be subject to a registration embargo if it suffers an "insolvency event", such as going into administration.

In November, when Rangers FC PLC released unaudited accounts to the stock exchange, owner Mr Whyte confirmed he was disqualified for seven years in 2000 while in charge of Vital UK Ltd.

The accounts revealed pre-tax profit at Ibrox fell by more than £4m to £76,000 last year while the club saw a rise of almost £1m in turnover and a £13m reduction in net debt.

Later this month another set of hearings will take place between Rangers and HMRC over a disputed £49m tax and penalties bill relating to the club’s use of an Employee Benefit Trust to pay players between 2001 and 2010.

The First Tier Tribunal in Edinburgh will take place on January 16, 17 and 18. Should the case conclude then, a decision in what Mr Whyte has described as a "dark cloud" hanging over Rangers is expected around six weeks afterwards.

Mr Whyte and directors Andrew Ellis and Phil Betts acquired the club for £1 last May through the parent company Rangers FC Group, which gave them an 85% of ordinary shares at Ibrox.

http://news.stv.tv/scotland/west-central/292920-rangers-suspended-from-stock-exchange-over-failing-to-file-accounts/

A few of the questions getting asked are in here.

[offminorthreat 1,467]

Okay, in simple terms:

- should the accounts at 30 June 2011 show a liability of £50m to HMRC or £0 to HMRC?

The answer depends on the view taken on the tax case (or its actual outcome once known) and it is irrelevant that the final position will not be known until after 30 June 2011.

At one extreme, we would have a £50m liability, our balance sheet would be insolvent, the directors and auditors couldn't sign off on going concern, and we'd go into administration.

At the other extreme, we would have no liability, our balance sheet would be positive, the directors and auditors could sign off on going concern, and we'd be 'business as usual'.

These are fundamentally different positions which are affected by the outcome of the tax case.

Spot on

[JRodgA2k8 542]

I genuinely have not really idea what's going on because i cba reading through the whole thing

So a one word answer please , is it as bad as it sounds ?

No!

[Right_To_Censor 1,951]

bullshit

how you get off with posting so much bullshit on this website i will never know, literally one of the worst posters on the whole board.

Thanks I guess

[boss 1,941]

Getting ready to go private, we may well never see another AGM.

No. An AGM is still required irrespective of listing.

[Turnberry18 3,204]

Okay, in simple terms:

- should the accounts at 30 June 2011 show a liability of £50m to HMRC or £0 to HMRC?

The answer depends on the view taken on the tax case (or its actual outcome once known) and it is irrelevant that the final position will not be known until after 30 June 2011.

At one extreme, we would have a £50m liability, our balance sheet would be insolvent, the directors and auditors couldn't sign off on going concern, and we'd go into administration.

At the other extreme, we would have no liability, our balance sheet would be positive, the directors and auditors could sign off on going concern, and we'd be 'business as usual'.

These are fundamentally different positions which are affected by the outcome of the tax case.

The repercussions of Rangers losing the tax case to the full extent will probably be appreciated by everyone, yes, including me. For me the crucial thing would be the auditor's statement in relation to the Tax Case. The PLUS announcement seems distinct from the tax case, and the failure to finalise the auditing; and that is what I found confusing.

[offminorthreat 1,467]

Would our lack of a credit facility not also be a considering factor. What I mean is, even without the taxcase we are trading at a loss, especially without Euro monies.

It could, but shareholders aka Whyte can write a "comfort letter" to the company saying he will fund operating losses. I presume these smallish losses are within high means to fund. Tack on another 50mil is where he cannot do that...

[robertkay 39]

I don't know much about the finer details of the trading of share however one thing that does really, really worry me is that if (and it's a huge if) we lose the tax case then we rely solely on Craig Whyte to keep the club afloat. Without the ability to trade shares a share issue would be out of the question which even though Whyte ruled it out, it would be a sure fire way to raise money quickly if the club was in real danger. The other thing it rules out for the time being is external investment. If we can't convince someone to invest in the club by purchasing shares then we can hardly talk someone into gifting the club money.

to my knowledge this has no impact on our ability to operate on a day to day basis and shouldn't change any plans regarding transfers in or out. Still, surprises me a little that some are writing it off as a non-story as the operation of any public company is based on the ability to buy and sell shares. Not saying this is a terminal issue, but it is worrying that the level of mis-management the previous regime appears to get deeper and deeper.