Rangers shares suspended from trading on PLUS

[boss 1,941]

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.

Yes, but the question was "why is the tax case fundamental to the 2011 accounts?".

It would literally take days (years?) to explain to some of the non accountants all the factors that are at play in the accounts.

[boss 1,941]

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.

No, they follow from one another:

uncertainty in the tax case --> fundamental to the accounts --> difficulty for the directors and auditors to sign off on going concern --> accounts remain unfinalised --> no accounts so share trading suspended.

[Turnberry18 3,204]

No, they follow from one another:

uncertainty in the tax case --> fundamental to the accounts --> difficulty for the directors and auditors to sign off on going concern --> accounts remain unfinalised --> no accounts so share trading suspended.

They don't really: the statement carrying the quote from Mr Whyte on the Rangers website is quite clear when it says "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."

That statement suggests the failure to finalise the auditing, and the suspension from PLUS are distinct what was purposed by the Board in regards to PLUS anyway.

[rokcy 4]

No. An AGM is still required irrespective of listing.

Most private companies are not required to hold an AGM. Public limited companies (plcs) must hold an AGM within six months of their financial year end.

[Sicknote 26]

Yes, but the question was "why is the tax case fundamental to the 2011 accounts?".

It would literally take days (years?) to explain to some of the non accountants all the factors that are at play in the accounts.

Can appreciate that. Steep nsteep learning curve for most

[boss 1,941]

Most private companies are not required to hold an AGM. Public limited companies (plcs) must hold an AGM within six months of their financial year end.

We are a plc. And we remain a plc irrespective of listing. Public/private is a different issue to listed/not listed.

[boss 1,941]

They don't really: the statement carrying the quote from Mr Whyte on the Rangers website is quite clear when it says "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."

That statement suggests the failure to finalise the auditing, and the suspension from PLUS are distinct what was purposed by the Board in regards to PLUS anyway.

I have no idea what you are trying to say here.

Trust me, my earlier post stands, they follow on from each other.

[Jack The Flipper 5,936]

I really don't understand this, like i said when the media were onto the fact our accounts were unaudited the first time around - having audited accounts is one of the fundimental things that should be accomplished when running any kind of registered business.

It doesn't matter if the tax liability is there, any provisions for it should be noted in the books, or a note should be made in the published accounts.

Just because we have a large liability which might not happen it doesn't mean the auditing of our books should be suspended until we find out what happens.

It is unprofessional, it is not representing the clubs finances as fair and true - it's shocking for shareholders like myself to have to wonder what the hell's going on - on the whim of somebody who is not interested in following the fundimental accounting principles layed out in order to prevent any shady business being done.

I'm starting to get really pissed off by all of this.

[rokcy 4]

We are a plc. And we remain a plc irrespective of listing. Public/private is a different issue to listed/not listed.

That is what I said, I would put money on it that he is taking us down the private route.

[krissg910 110]

whyte isnt interested in selling any shares so being in the market is pretty pointless.

the reason the accounts are not signed off is pretty simple aswell and no mysterious secret.

plain english- if the sign the accounts off without including the possible(doubtful) 49 mill tax bill included and we lost the case to that amount then the board could go to jail if we lose the tax case.

if they include the possible 49mil in the accounts then our debts would be too big for mr whyte to cover and it would mean immediate adminastration.

so because of the above 2 reasons both the board and auditors are unwilling to choose 1 of the above positions therefor our accounts will remain unsigned until they have a clearer picture on the outcome of said taxcase.

so mr whyte has done the only viable option to him and thats to not produce audited accounts.

[rangersxfc 265]

less than £1000 worth of Rangers traded in Nov/Dec. So withdrawal from stock exchange no great loss

[boss 1,941]

It doesn't matter if the tax liability is there, any provisions for it should be noted in the books, or a note should be made in the published accounts.

Okay, so how much should be provided in the 30 June 2011 accounts?

£50m?

£0?

Somewhere in between?

And how can ANYONE know the answer to that at this time?

No-one can know the answer, hence the delays. But if you know better...

[offminorthreat 1,467]

I really don't understand this, like i said when the media were onto the fact our accounts were unaudited the first time around - having audited accounts is one of the fundimental things that should be accomplished when running any kind of registered business.

It doesn't matter if the tax liability is there, any provisions for it should be noted in the books, or a note should be made in the published accounts.

Just because we have a large liability which might not happen it doesn't mean the auditing of our books should be suspended until we find out what happens.

It is unprofessional, it is not representing the clubs finances as fair and true - it's shocking for shareholders like myself to have to wonder what the hell's going on - on the whim of somebody who is not interested in following the fundimental accounting principles layed out in order to prevent any shady business being done.

I'm starting to get really pissed off by all of this.

Read my earlier post. They CAN finalize them today, but it will result in administration as they will recognise the full 50m which means we are insolvent. Sun why would you do that? Best to wait.as long as you legally can.

[boss 1,941]

That is what I said, I would put money on it that he is taking us down the private route.

I'm not sure that he is (although I can't rule it out). I am pretty sure, however, that he is taking us down the unlisted route.

[rokcy 4]

The accounts were signed of before with no special mentions of any extraordinary allowances or notes for any tax problem large or small and they were known about then, something is not quite adding up apart from the figures.

[Jack The Flipper 5,936]

whyte isnt interested in selling any shares so being in the market is pretty pointless.

the reason the accounts are not signed off is pretty simple aswell and no mysterious secret.

plain english- if the sign the accounts off without including the possible(doubtful) 49 mill tax bill included and we lost the case to that amount then the board could go to jail if we lose the tax case.

if they include the possible 49mil in the accounts then our debts would be too big for mr whyte to cover and it would mean immediate adminastration.

so because of the above 2 reasons both the board and auditors are unwilling to choose 1 of the above positions therefor our accounts will remain unsigned until they have a clearer picture on the outcome of said taxcase.

so mr whyte has done the only viable option to him and thats to not produce audited accounts.

That's not true, you can put a note in the accounts telling stakeholders a large liability is hanging over out heads. A company does not need to make legal provisions for something if it has been told there is less than a 50% chance of the liability hitting us.

We DONT need to include the liability in the books, but we do have to make a note in the books clearly describing what is happening.

So that's why I'm pissed off, there's no real reason to not audit the books other than to hide information from stakeholders.

[boss 1,941]

less than £1000 worth of Rangers traded in Nov/Dec. So withdrawal from stock exchange no great loss

Agreed. The number of trades in recent months has been:

Dec 2

Nov 5

Oct 7

Sep 2

Hard to justify the cost of listing!

[Jack The Flipper 5,936]

Urgh read that post, you don't need to account for such a liability in the books if the company feels they are going to win the case. But they have to add information about it to the notes in the financial papers.

[rokcy 4]

I'm not sure that he is (although I can't rule it out). I am pretty sure, however, that he is taking us down the unlisted route.

No probs Boss, I would like to think we will remain as we are as an establishment although naturally better off financially, I think we will be asked to put our hands in our pockets in the not to distant future.

[krissg910 110]

That's not true, you can put a note in the accounts telling stakeholders a large liability is hanging over out heads. A company does not need to make legal provisions for something if it has been told there is less than a 50% chance of the liability hitting us.

We DONT need to include the liability in the books, but we do have to make a note in the books clearly describing what is happening.

So that's why I'm pissed off, there's no real reason to not audit the books other than to hide information from stakeholders.

how do we know what chance we have of winning/losing the case. only mr whyte knows this and to be fair i doubt a lawyer would be willing to state a percentage on the outcome of this case when i believe that even the lawyers for both sides dont know what way the case will go.

[offminorthreat 1,467]

Urgh read that post, you don't need to account for such a liability in the books if the company feels they are going to win the case. But they have to add information about it to the notes in the financial papers.

Wrong. It is not up to the company to decide. For.audited accounts, it is up to the auditors. They obviously have a view that there its some likelihood that the 50m is possible.

[boss 1,941]

That's not true, you can put a note in the accounts telling stakeholders a large liability is hanging over out heads. A company does not need to make legal provisions for something if it has been told there is less than a 50% chance of the liability hitting us.

We DONT need to include the liability in the books, but we do have to make a note in the books clearly describing what is happening.

So that's why I'm pissed off, there's no real reason to not audit the books other than to hide information from stakeholders.

Going concern! Seems you are desperate for us to sign off such accounts and thereby not get be able to compete in Europe.

[Jack The Flipper 5,936]

how do we know what chance we have of winning/losing the case. only mr whyte knows this and to be fair i doubt a lawyer would be willing to state a percentage on the outcome of this case when i believe that even the lawyers for both sides dont know what way the case will go.

Well whether or not you agree with it that's how it's done.

Whyte has stated that he thinks we will win the case, so if we are to beleive him then we really shouldn't be worried and all he needs to do is include this in the notes.

[Jack The Flipper 5,936]

Going concern! Seems you are desperate for us to sign off such accounts and thereby not get be able to compete in Europe.

Me? errrrr no, i'm just wanting to know what the hell's going on tbh.

[boss 1,941]

No probs Boss, I would like to think we will remain as we are as an establishment although naturally better off financially, I think we will be asked to put our hands in our pockets in the not to distant future.

It's certainly an "out" for Whyte that can't be entirely discounted!