thplinth Posted April 2, 2015 Share Posted April 2, 2015 So now King is free of all the reporting obligations that went with being listed and having to satisfy a Nomad. And with no auditor to audit the accounts it does sort of make the shareholders look a little vulnerable. It could well be they have voted a wolf into the shepherd's job while losing their remaining sheepdogs. Bit of a sheep theme there I know. I think it is safe to say this will herald the end of King's Huneymoon period. I wonder how this going down on Ranger's Media. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scunnered Posted April 2, 2015 Share Posted April 2, 2015 I was going to come on and say that if and when I see anything from King that makes me think he's failing to do what he said See my post above... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Parklife Posted April 2, 2015 Share Posted April 2, 2015 I still don't think it's the doomsday scenario that some are predicting but it is a worry. I'm not a financial expert (no, really) so I don't fully understand the ramifications of this but in layman's terms I'd say it removes the ability for further shareholder investment in the club so unless King can sort it out and find a NOMAD to get us relisted (is that possible?) then the onus will fall on him to provide the funding. Interesting times ahead. I'm not either and i have no idea what it means. I'm just pointing out that Dave King is duplicitous individual. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShedTA Posted April 2, 2015 Share Posted April 2, 2015 I was going to come on and say that if and when I see anything from King that makes me think he's failing to do what he said then I'd hold my hands up and admit it. I'd like to think over the years I've posted on here that that's been my style. I've then just read the post in between the one I've quoted and mine regarding not being able to get a NOMAD. So yes, it is concerning to say the least. I still don't think it's the doomsday scenario that some are predicting but it is a worry. I'm not a financial expert (no, really) so I don't fully understand the ramifications of this but in layman's terms I'd say it removes the ability for further shareholder investment in the club so unless King can sort it out and find a NOMAD to get us relisted (is that possible?) then the onus will fall on him to provide the funding. Interesting times ahead. agreed - not a disaster as such but it seems King has lied glibly and shamelessly to the Rangers support. who would have thought it? I guess if you place your faith in a person a judge has branded as such then what do you expect? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kenneth Farrington Posted April 2, 2015 Share Posted April 2, 2015 @STVRaman: This is what Dave King told us on March 6th: ''if we succeed tomorrow (re takeover), we'll get it [NOMAD] immediately''. He has no respect for the truth & does not hesitate to lie if he thinks it will be to his advantage. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShedTA Posted April 2, 2015 Share Posted April 2, 2015 He has no respect for the truth & does not hesitate to lie if he thinks it will be to his advantage. which it was. he lied to gain support for his EGM board takeover, glibly and shamelessly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Parklife Posted April 2, 2015 Share Posted April 2, 2015 May i salute you for your repeated use of "glib" and "shameless" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chief Posted April 2, 2015 Share Posted April 2, 2015 (edited) Dave King's a lying b'stard, example #896120205. He stated on March 6th that his preference would be for the club to be de-listed Edited April 2, 2015 by Chief Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShedTA Posted April 2, 2015 Share Posted April 2, 2015 May i salute you for your repeated use of "glib" and "shameless" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShedTA Posted April 2, 2015 Share Posted April 2, 2015 He stated on March 6th that his preference would be for the club to be de-listed preparing the ground. but he did state that he had a Nomad lined up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thplinth Posted April 2, 2015 Share Posted April 2, 2015 On the P&L what is the 804k to the Non Controlling Interest? This amount is also what the Non Controlling interest increases by on the balance sheet? It is kind of weird expressing it this way. The P&L is a little deceptive because the true loss is 3.66m not 2.86m. For the full year 2014 they lost just over 8m. Or about just shy of 670k per month. Triple H's loan is not going to last long. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RenfrewBlue Posted April 2, 2015 Share Posted April 2, 2015 I don't ignore much on here (expect 95% of your posts, as i have you on ignore). So if you've mentioned this before, accompanied with something a bit more substance to back it up, then i'll have missed it. I ignore most of what King says, as his words are worth next to nothing due to his previous actions. Once he starts backing his words up with actions, then i'll become less sceptical of what he says. Regardless of whether a loan is interest free, for a club haemorrhaging cash and already with loans to pay off, another loan raises alarm bells. I'd expect this to be followed up fairly sharply with some details of how those in charge expect to turn the state of the clubs finances around and raise the capital required to pay back the loans already taken. Has it? What's the plan? How will this plan be implemented? What are the timescales? "We'll be back where we belong by 2022. Wearrapeepil. No surrender" isn't a real plan. Just empty rhetoric designed to appeal to Rangers fans. Petty child aren't you? ?You should do a bit of reading. Paul Murrays interview recently posted on the Rangers YouTube channel has a fair bit of info on this for you. Obviously you'll just shout liar, liar but at least I'll have tried. The lack of Nomad is interesting as I don't pretend to understand the implications, unlike some on here. Not sure how bad this will be as we're unlikely to get loaned money by reputable sources thanks to the recent financial history. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thplinth Posted April 2, 2015 Share Posted April 2, 2015 (edited) If you look on the balance sheet the non controlling interest doubles while 'the owners' equity is being eroded by the losses. Profits are being taken out and used to give the non controlling interests new equity. It is a little odd looking to me. And by the way this not exactly the 'transparent' set of accounts we were promised and they are certainly no better than the previous board's reports. Why do we still not have a full breakdown of the other operating expenses, i.e. the number that does all the damage on the P&L. Edited April 2, 2015 by thplinth Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShedTA Posted April 2, 2015 Share Posted April 2, 2015 If you look on the balance sheet the non controlling interest doubles while 'the owners' equity is being eroded by the losses. Profits are being taken out and used to give the non controlling interests new equity. It is a little odd looking to me. And by the way this not exactly the 'transparent' set of accounts we were promised and they are certainly no better than the previous board's reports. Why do we still not have a full breakdown of the other operating expenses, i.e. the number that does all the damage on the P&L. and who owns the deeds anyway? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thplinth Posted April 2, 2015 Share Posted April 2, 2015 and who owns the deeds anyway? The fact no loan security has ever been issued for Ibrox suggests to me they are unable to do so for some reason no one is talking about, including the new board. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Parklife Posted April 2, 2015 Share Posted April 2, 2015 Petty child aren't you? ? Nope. You're the one who thinks it's acceptable to throw slurs around and insult the character of folk they don't know. That's why you were put on ignore. The fact you're a tedious, boring, ignorant, know-it-all only validates my decision to ignore your posts. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
giblet Posted April 2, 2015 Share Posted April 2, 2015 The fact no loan security has ever been issued for Ibrox suggests to me they are unable to do so for some reason no one is talking about, including the new board. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RenfrewBlue Posted April 2, 2015 Share Posted April 2, 2015 If you look on the balance sheet the non controlling interest doubles while 'the owners' equity is being eroded by the losses. Profits are being taken out and used to give the non controlling interests new equity. It is a little odd looking to me. And by the way this not exactly the 'transparent' set of accounts we were promised and they are certainly no better than the previous board's reports. Why do we still not have a full breakdown of the other operating expenses, i.e. the number that does all the damage on the P&L. Again, stating the obvious, I'm no expert in this area, so could the lack of an accountant be part of the reason for the lack of clarity? Deloitte (I think) resigned 6 months ago and nobody informed the new board.Were the new board even involved in the creation of these accounts? I don't know how long the process is for creating a set of accounts. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RenfrewBlue Posted April 2, 2015 Share Posted April 2, 2015 Nope. You're the one who thinks it's acceptable to throw slurs around and insult the character of folk they don't know. That's why you were put on ignore. The fact you're a tedious, boring, ignorant, know-it-all only validates my decision to ignore your posts.Oh dear. Did I call you a name you didn't like?You should try being a Rangers supporter on here during the last 4 years. I'll add sensitive soul to your epithet list then. ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thplinth Posted April 2, 2015 Share Posted April 2, 2015 Again, stating the obvious, I'm no expert in this area, so could the lack of an accountant be part of the reason for the lack of clarity? Deloitte (I think) resigned 6 months ago and nobody informed the new board. Were the new board even involved in the creation of these accounts? I don't know how long the process is for creating a set of accounts. RFC have an accountant they just do not have anyone to audit the accounts they produce. Regarding the non-controlling investors if you look on the p&l it says a loss of 2.86m but on the changes to equity it is listed as 3.66m. This because 804k of non existent profit was attributed to the non-controlling investor which effectively added to the 2.86m operating loss. Same in the comparatives. Because the same 804k shows up in the equity change of the non-controlling number on the balance sheet I think it must some form of stock award or stock option. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larky Masher Posted April 2, 2015 Share Posted April 2, 2015 RFC have an accountant they just do not have anyone to audit the accounts they produce. Regarding the non-controlling investors if you look on the p&l it says a loss of 2.86m but on the changes to equity it is listed as 3.66m. This because 804k of non existent profit was attributed to the non-controlling investor which effectively added to the 2.86m operating loss. Same in the comparatives. Because the same 804k shows up in the equity change of the non-controlling number on the balance sheet I think it must some form of stock award or stock option. Last statement of the old regime, the finances are in a mess but they will get better, not overnight but it will happen. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thplinth Posted April 2, 2015 Share Posted April 2, 2015 Puts to this way. In the P&L RFC make a loss. Yet the non controlling interest is attributed a 804 k profit. The controlling interest then has to add that amount to their losses. Even a bad year is a good year for the non controlling interests. I would want to know why. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larky Masher Posted April 2, 2015 Share Posted April 2, 2015 RFC have an accountant they just do not have anyone to audit the accounts they produce. Regarding the non-controlling investors if you look on the p&l it says a loss of 2.86m but on the changes to equity it is listed as 3.66m. This because 804k of non existent profit was attributed to the non-controlling investor which effectively added to the 2.86m operating loss. Same in the comparatives. Because the same 804k shows up in the equity change of the non-controlling number on the balance sheet I think it must some form of stock award or stock option. Non controlling interest is the portion of the shares not owned by the parent company, nothing sinister. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scunnered Posted April 2, 2015 Share Posted April 2, 2015 Seems the Easdales are taking legal action. To what end I'm not sure. Statement is TL;DR Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fairbairn Posted April 2, 2015 Share Posted April 2, 2015 Statement is TL;DRWas it PGB that released it....? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.