Jump to content

proof rangers are financially secure


Recommended Posts

open letter to all the haters, fools and the journalistic illiterate., solid proof that rangers have not any financial problems. first of all let me state, that accounts are very ambiguous and you need to read them, only haters and the semi illiterate say the first thing that comes into their head.

here is our accounts http://www.londonstockexchange.com/exchange/news/market-news/market-news-detail.html?announcementId=11506139 please refer to them as I quote from them.

the first thing that hits you is this, Release of negative goodwill in the statement immediately below all the executive statements. the sum across for this column is 20,465 millions. now that is a red herring, it simply is cash put into accounts that isn’t there, but because of the distressed sale of ibrox it counts for accounts purposes as part of any profit, though in reality isn’t money, but looks like it. its not. this is the way accounts are, terminology, and figures that accounts use.

anyway under this column, you will find operating expenses, now this is the part that has all the buffoons hot under the collar. the figure is 16,572 millions. now part of these operating costs is Amortisation of players’ registrations, 860,000. now this is simply the value of players to the club, because their contracts are one year on, and their sell on value has been reduced, due to their contracts, and the freedom of their ability to move on at the end of them for free, thus their value as sellable assets reduces. again no monetary loss as to what rangers are actually spending, cash, just reduced valuation to the club, but in terms of losing actual money through its a red herring, but to the club their sell on value has reduced and so an operational cost. depreciation would be a better term. no cash loss in real terms through spending. so there is nearly 1 million off in reality what the club are spending.

now It gets better, please now refer to Condensed consolidated Statement of Cash Flows

For the 7 month period from incorporation to 31 December 2012 (scroll down to you reach there)

now that’s a column. now read Cash used in operations. do you read that everyone, cash used in operations, or in other words operational expenses. now if you read from the first column I quoted from you will see these words. Other, under amortisation, other amounts to 15,712 millions. very ambiguous. well in this column I have brought you down to, here is a lot of these operational costs or expenses. these are the headings

Purchase of trade and assets

Purchase of intangible assets

Purchase of property, plant and equipment`

repayment of RFC 2012 plc football debt

Interest paid

this total comes to 10,822 millions, operating expenses. now the above and the figures, to the right of them, are what Charles green and his partners paid for the purchase of our great club and all of its assets.

this is what the operational expenses are which are included in the operational expenses for accounts purposes.

now it gets better, go below this column. now this is what rangers brought in, which included in this is the share issue. now as you see the issue brought in 30,798 millions, and theres a few more things added into this column for different things. that figure comes out at 32,726 millions. subtract what Charles green and his partners put in for the operational expenses, which must be included on the accounts and you get the figure 21,904. now as you see from the top of the column people were paid for floating the shares to the tune of 713,000 so you have the figure, after clearing all the original investors who contributed to the purchase of the assets, and the interest they charged on their money, rangers had 21,191 millions and owing no one anything, as football creditors paid as well.

now we can remove 860,000 (amortisation or better term depreciation, not actually spending, but players current value, due to depreciation in their value, as their contracts run down) and 10,822 millions from the operational costs in the first heading quoted and in reality we then have this figure for the true operational costs of 4.9 million. that’s our true operational costs for the month of may 2012 to dec of 2012.

as you see rangers brought in this figure of 9,524 millions in revenue and subtract that from the true operational costs and we have 4.6 million to see us through the remainder of the six months, with wages and salaries for the year believed to be around 6 million, and half of the year already paid.

now what you will notice bears in our accounts, something you will never find in any other Scottish football club accounts is these words, Cash and cash equivalents at the beginning of the period 21,191 millions. in other words like mr mather has declared rangers are living well within our means and have cash in the bank.

its just a pity that haters and illiterate journalists continue to peddle the myth and downright lies, to destabilise the rangers support.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 88
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Having said that, I've seen the OP's work before and he knows his stuff.

Do you mean from his other 2 posts or his "work" from somewhere else?

The fact that this was from March means it's hardly a bombshell exclusive...

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't see any proof.

Shitloads of hearsay and speculation, but zero proof.

Expect we are doing okay, but will have eaten into a shit load of the share cash. Not overly worrying as long as we are opening and stabilising our revenue streams.

No-one knows for sure until the next set of accounts is signed off and published though.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Do you mean from his other 2 posts or his "work" from somewhere else?

The fact that this was from March means it's hardly a bombshell exclusive...

I recognise the username from an expose done on Celtics finances a while back. Can't remember where for the life of me unfortunately.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't see any proof.

Shitloads of hearsay and speculation, but zero proof.

Expect we are doing okay, but will have eaten into a shit load of the share cash. Not overly worrying as long as we are opening and stabilising our revenue streams.

No-one knows for sure until the next set of accounts is signed off and published though.

Fuck off we're fine. Pharaoh Tara Palmer Tomkinson said so!

Link to post
Share on other sites

open letter to all the haters, fools and the journalistic illiterate., solid proof that rangers have not any financial problems. first of all let me state, that accounts are very ambiguous and you need to read them, only haters and the semi illiterate say the first thing that comes into their head.

here is our accounts http://www.londonstockexchange.com/exchange/news/market-news/market-news-detail.html?announcementId=11506139 please refer to them as I quote from them.

the first thing that hits you is this, Release of negative goodwill in the statement immediately below all the executive statements. the sum across for this column is 20,465 millions. now that is a red herring, it simply is cash put into accounts that isn’t there, but because of the distressed sale of ibrox it counts for accounts purposes as part of any profit, though in reality isn’t money, but looks like it. its not. this is the way accounts are, terminology, and figures that accounts use.

anyway under this column, you will find operating expenses, now this is the part that has all the buffoons hot under the collar. the figure is 16,572 millions. now part of these operating costs is Amortisation of players’ registrations, 860,000. now this is simply the value of players to the club, because their contracts are one year on, and their sell on value has been reduced, due to their contracts, and the freedom of their ability to move on at the end of them for free, thus their value as sellable assets reduces. again no monetary loss as to what rangers are actually spending, cash, just reduced valuation to the club, but in terms of losing actual money through its a red herring, but to the club their sell on value has reduced and so an operational cost. depreciation would be a better term. no cash loss in real terms through spending. so there is nearly 1 million off in reality what the club are spending.

now It gets better, please now refer to Condensed consolidated Statement of Cash Flows

For the 7 month period from incorporation to 31 December 2012 (scroll down to you reach there)

now that’s a column. now read Cash used in operations. do you read that everyone, cash used in operations, or in other words operational expenses. now if you read from the first column I quoted from you will see these words. Other, under amortisation, other amounts to 15,712 millions. very ambiguous. well in this column I have brought you down to, here is a lot of these operational costs or expenses. these are the headings

Purchase of trade and assets

Purchase of intangible assets

Purchase of property, plant and equipment`

repayment of RFC 2012 plc football debt

Interest paid

this total comes to 10,822 millions, operating expenses. now the above and the figures, to the right of them, are what Charles green and his partners paid for the purchase of our great club and all of its assets.

this is what the operational expenses are which are included in the operational expenses for accounts purposes.

now it gets better, go below this column. now this is what rangers brought in, which included in this is the share issue. now as you see the issue brought in 30,798 millions, and theres a few more things added into this column for different things. that figure comes out at 32,726 millions. subtract what Charles green and his partners put in for the operational expenses, which must be included on the accounts and you get the figure 21,904. now as you see from the top of the column people were paid for floating the shares to the tune of 713,000 so you have the figure, after clearing all the original investors who contributed to the purchase of the assets, and the interest they charged on their money, rangers had 21,191 millions and owing no one anything, as football creditors paid as well.

now we can remove 860,000 (amortisation or better term depreciation, not actually spending, but players current value, due to depreciation in their value, as their contracts run down) and 10,822 millions from the operational costs in the first heading quoted and in reality we then have this figure for the true operational costs of 4.9 million. that’s our true operational costs for the month of may 2012 to dec of 2012.

as you see rangers brought in this figure of 9,524 millions in revenue and subtract that from the true operational costs and we have 4.6 million to see us through the remainder of the six months, with wages and salaries for the year believed to be around 6 million, and half of the year already paid.

now what you will notice bears in our accounts, something you will never find in any other Scottish football club accounts is these words, Cash and cash equivalents at the beginning of the period 21,191 millions. in other words like mr mather has declared rangers are living well within our means and have cash in the bank.

its just a pity that haters and illiterate journalists continue to peddle the myth and downright lies, to destabilise the rangers support.

If true .Good news and appreciate you posting mate .
Link to post
Share on other sites

I recognise the username from an expose done on Celtics finances a while back. Can't remember where for the life of me unfortunately.

I think it was the Bill McMurdo blog as aforementioned. I remember the username as it is pretty recognisable.

Link to post
Share on other sites

So this kind of puts to bed the speculation that we had eaten through the IPO cash and were just about to go bankrupt, don't need to guess who started that. But still makes you wonder why so many on here are willing to buy into it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

So this kind of puts to bed the speculation that we had eaten through the IPO cash and were just about to go bankrupt, don't need to guess who started that. But still makes you wonder why so many on here are willing to buy into it.

It's better to be negative and proved wrong than positive and proved wrong. That way when you're wrong it's still a good thing.

Link to post
Share on other sites

So this kind of puts to bed the speculation that we had eaten through the IPO cash and were just about to go bankrupt, don't need to guess who started that. But still makes you wonder why so many on here are willing to buy into it.

It really doesn't.

Only the published accounts can do that.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...