With Rangers midterm accounts several weeks late the Scottish press pack continues to show their ignorance of even the basic facts.
One doesn’t need an accountancy degree just an enquiring mind and a commitment to getting the facts right.
A case in point of this ignorance was a call fielded last night by Graham Spiers on Clyde 1 Super scoreboard.
Graham is easily the most erudite of sports reporter in Scotland.
He could easily make the transformation into more intellectually demanding areas of journalism.
Asked why the accounts were late Graham alluded to a “vigorous discussion” being conducted in the Ibrox board room.
He then said that the debate was about “budgets for the rest of the season.”
A company’s accounts, whether they be midyear accounts or the full annual ones are always a historical records.
They are a look back at how the company has performed, what has come in and what has went out.
I have no doubt that a “vigorous discussion” is taking place among the major players in the Ibrox boardroom.
What could this discussion centre upon?
There are two probable bones of contention.
The first one is whether or not to put a figure on the contingent liability of the tax bill.
The second possible area of disagreement is whether or not there has been a devaluation of fixed assets.
Whatever this boardroom disagreement is about it is not about budgets for the rest of the season.
Even annual accounts never discuss the coming year in anything other than very very general terms.
Anything else would be to potentially show your hand to a competitor.
However, discussion on budgets are,of course,vital to the planning process of any well run company.
There may well be serious discussions going on in the Ibrox board room about the future budgets.
I would be surprised if this wasn’t the case.
However, the idea that a discussion of future budgets is holding up the publication of Ranger’s midyear accounts is risible.
Graham said to me in Dublin last month that there were many journalists in Scotland “groping in the dark” apropos the Rangers tax case.
I see what he means.