Rugger Guy analyses RIFC 2017 acccounts

Last night the accounts of Rangers International Football Club (RIFC) were released and they can be viewed here.

 

As promised, here is Rugger Guy’s take on them:

 

Rangers International accounts 30 June 2017

Phil, as per your request I will try and prepare a review of the accounts of RIFC for the current year. Unsurprisingly, there is a lot of devil in the detail of the accounts, contained in the 60 page report. The headline numbers of £29m turnover and loss before tax of £6.8m together with additional funding of £5.9m has been reported, but I will uncover some of the important issues that have not been highlighted by the press.

The accounts were issued at about 8pm last night and ordinarily when accounts are issued late on a Friday night then you anticipate that good news is not forthcoming. On this occasion, this is a serious understatement. These accounts contain more questions than answers and I wonder if the timing allows certain matters to be avoided. The auditors signed off the accounts on the 26th October. These were published 8 days later, post the sacking of Pedro Caixinha and post the meeting regarding health and safety meeting regarding the football stadium. Neither of these issues are referenced in the accounts. As the accounts contain an emphasis matter regarding going concern, the exclusion of any other possible costs are helpful in quantifying the financial assistance that is required.

In my report, I will deal with the following points

 Auditors report and going concern

Sports Direct

Directors’ loans and funding.

Commentary on the published accounts.

Player investments and liabilities.

Post balance sheet events.

Conclusion.

  

Auditors report and going concern.

In Groundhog Day fashion, the accounts have received an emphasis of matter statement regarding going concern. The auditors Campbell Dallas have for emphasis this year quantified the amounts needed over the next 12 months of £7.2m, in their statement. £4m is required up until June 2018, with monies being required now, and a further £3.2m after June 2018. It is important to remember that it is the directors that are responsible for the strategic report and report of directors. Campbell Dallas correctly state that their opinion on the financial information does not cover this information and they do not express any form of assurance conclusion thereon.

On the issue of going concern, the directors make assumptions regarding revenues and expenditure. I think it is important that the readers are aware of these and I will pass some comments thereon, these are highlighted in bold form.

 

Going concern 

The Board has undertaken a recent and thorough review of the Group’s forecasts and the associated risks. These forecasts extend for a period beyond one year from the date of approval of these financial statements. The extent of this review reflected the current economic environment, the Club’s current and projected trading and position in Scottish football.

The forecasts make key assumptions, based on information available to the Board, around:

Football performance, the forecast assumes the Club will challenge for the European places in the Ladbrokes SPFL Premiership in 2017/18 and participate in European competition in the season thereafter; this is critical given the investment in players that will be discussed later.

Season ticket sales, the timing and amount of which are consistent with the Club’s historic experience. The forecasts include an uplift in season ticket prices to reflect annual inflationary increases and forecast improved football performance; the season ticket uplift has gone from £255 to £314, an increase of 23% and season ticket sales were 43253. I think that there is little scope to increase the amount of ticket sales, I am not sure how much of further increases that the supporters will accommodate.

 Match day income, which is projected to grow as a result of improving footballing performance and success; Failure in performance will see this fall.

 Sponsorship, commercial and other non-match day income reflecting customer confidence returning and increased hospitality demand; l The inclusion of cash flows as a result of the new retail agreement with SDI Retail Services Limited;  Discussed later but not sure or convinced about how much this will provide.

Maintaining the current overhead cost base of the Club; Cost increase in the year excluding staff costs was 28%, so a big challenge I suspect.

Payroll costs reflecting the current squad size and composition in perspective to its assumptions around league performance. The forecast cash flows assumes future transfer payables will be met by future transfer receivables; No further net investment in players, which may not be well received by paying supporters and not sure that this will be publicised.

 The capital expenditure necessary to maintain and improve the stadium and general Ibrox vicinity; No quantification of this amount other than a commitment  to spend £800k highlighted in post balance sheet events.

 The Group’s ability to secure further debt or equity finance from its current investors or through public share issue to allow the Group to continue to meet its liabilities as they fall due. Critical but takeover panel looms a big shadow over this.

The Board recognises that achievement of the forecast is critically dependent on the football performance for the rest of the current season and next season, including the participation in European football competition. Consequently, sensitivities have been applied to the forecast based on a variety of football performance factors. This is a woolly statement indeed, you can drive a horse and cart through this. Remember that the financing requirement is on a minimum basis.

At the time of preparation, the forecasts identified that the Group would require a minimum of £4.0m additional funding by the end of season 2017/18 in order to meet its liabilities as they fall due. The first tranche of funding is required in November 2017.

Further funding amounting to £3.2m is forecast to be required during the 2018/19 season. However, the final amount is dependent on future football performance and European football participation amongst other factors.

The Board have discussed the Club’s forecast cash shortfall and have reached an agreement with New Oasis Asset Limited whereby they will provide additional loan facilities as necessary to meet the above requirements. I will deal with new oasis under directors’ loans section.

Further to this, New Oasis Asset Limited and certain investors have agreed to extend their existing loan facilities to July 2019.

The Board is satisfied that those parties will continue to provide financial support to the Group and have satisfied themselves as to the validity of the undertakings. Campbell Dallas will have taken these written assurances and validations as critical part of their audit report.

The Board acknowledge that had these assurances not been secured then a material uncertainty would exist which may cast doubt over the Groups ability to continue as a going concern and therefore its ability to realise its assets and discharge its liabilities in the normal course of business. With the appropriate assurances obtained and the continued support of the investors, the Board believe that such uncertainty has been removed.

Further to this, the Board is hopeful that the Club will be in position to proceed with a share issue during 2018 in order to provide further finance for the Group. Takeover panel rulings are critical together with football performance prospects.

The financial support committed more than covers the projected shortfall for this season and beyond.

As such, after making the enquiries referred to above, the Board of Directors believe that there is a reasonable expectation that the Group will at all times have adequate resources to continue in operational existence for the foreseeable future. Accordingly, they continue to adopt the going concern basis in preparing this report and the statutory financial statements. 

 

All in all, my highlighted comments indicate the degree of wariness that should be taken into consideration when looking at the prospects of ensuring the continuance of going concern statement.

 

Sports Direct.

A new agreement has been reached with Sports Direct International (SDI).This agreement is between SDI and RIFC. Rangers retail limited is being wound up, and the agreement is with RIFC, not the football club. This may appear subtle but in the event that the going concern is not maintained and that an administration event takes place, I suspect that SDI’s commercial agreement is protected. RIFC received a dividend of £620k during the financial year and further payment of £567k in October, however I believe that the termination agreement resulted in a cost of £2.75m to RIFC. I am not an expert in retail arrangements, but always thought that the bulk of profits were made by manufacture of the shirts and then secondly in the wholesale sale of the shirts. I am not sure how good and transformative this will be for RIFC. I would be cautious of expecting too much in this regard.

 

 

Directors’ loans and funding.

 

In the current year, the cash outflow from operations, a good indicator of underlying position, was just less than £6m. This was matched by further loans from directors and investors of some £6m.New Oasis Asset limited (NOAL) will provide all the future funding requirements in order to maintain going concern status. In addition, the directors and other investors who were due to receive repayments of their loans in June 2017 have extended the repayment dates to June 2018 and December 2018.Significantly, the sole provider of funding is NOAL. In the accounts of RIFC to June 2016,           NOAL was referred to as being controlled by Dave King.  However, in the accounts to June 2017, Dave King and his immediate family are “interested” in holdings in NOAL. This change in emphasis may have something to do with the recent Court of Session appearance, but it is becoming more critical that the court rules in favour of Dave King, otherwise it could have grave consequences  for the maintenance of  going concern. Total loans outstanding are c £16m, and NOAL is owed some £7m, the balance owed to directors and other related parties. These loans are still being maintained on an interest-free basis.

 

Commentary on the Published accounts.

 

RIFC saw turnover increase from £22.2m to £29.2m an increase of £7m.Season ticket sales were 43,000 and the average revenue per ticket increased by 23% to £314.Average home attendance was just under 49,000 so in the absence of increasing the capacity, RIFC will be dependent on further substantial ticket prices and or European participation to markedly increase their turnover levels. Total operating expenses increased by £8m to £32.9m.Player costs increased by 62% to £10.4m. Other operating charges include match day costs and the chairman’s report highlights that a 27% increase in other operating charges was driven by one additional home game played, together with a preseason foreign trip and repairs to the stadium. This overall increase of £2.5m is not broken down by category. Stadium expenditure of £0.8 is contracted by RIFC and is highlighted in post balance sheet events. As future investment in players will be financed by player sales, I sense that there will continue to be great pressure on the underlying cash flow of the business as revenue growth is challenging and the player investments (to be discussed separately) will see substantial contracted payments to be met. First team wages as a percentage of turnover jumped from 29% to 36%. It looks highly likely that this will grow significantly in the current year. A review of the balance sheet does not highlight anything significant other than a reclassification of debt into a longer time scale and also the investment in intangible assets which has grown by some £7.5m. This is essentially player investment which will be discussed separately. One interesting comment made by Mr King is that the results for the year to 2017  now ensures that RIFC  complies with UEFA fair play. I am not a football expert but I am presuming that the debt is being treated by equity as RIFC, otherwise, I have difficulty in understanding the accuracy of his statement.

 

Players investments and liabilities.

 

The accounting treatment of this is important to understand.

“The costs associated with acquiring players’ registrations, or extending their contracts, including agents’ fees, are capitalised and amortised, in equal instalments, over the period of the respective players’ contracts.”  By example, this means that if a  player costs  £2m and his agents fees are £0.4m  and the contract is for 3 years then essentially the cost reflected in the income statement is £0.8 per annum (£2.4m /3years).In addition, the wages will be charged in the normal way by a weekly charge to the income statement. At the beginning of the year, RIFC   value of assets was £3.7m. During the year £10.3m was incurred in new contracts and players sold or contracts terminated resulted in a reduction of £1.9m. The balance at the end of the year jumped to £12.1m. At face value, this may appear as a cash investment of £10.3m but this is not the case because included within liabilities is an amount in respect of player registrations. Amounts to be paid within the year is just over £3.5m and over one year is a further £4.5m. This liability excludes wages, this is simply the payment due for players. RIFC is owed £0.8m in respect of player sales. 72% of the value of footballers contracts are accounted for by 5 players and the average length of a contract is 35 months. In layman terms, these players will I presume to be on hefty wages for 3 years, in addition, the cost of acquiring them will require also to be prepaid within 3 years.

 

Post Balance sheet events and Contingent liabilities

RIFC has committed to contract for an expenditure of £800k on stadium improvements and ground equipment. Some of this may be financed by finance leases, the details are not given. Since July, RIFC has bought one player and sold four. Net receipts were £240k. Rangers retail received a dividend of £567k. NOAL and certain investors have extended the loan facilities to July 2019, although the bulk is due to be repaid by June 2018. Regarding contingent liabilities, there are no new items to report. There are no contingencies from creditors or Mark Warburton. In addition, as mentioned earlier, Pedro Caixinha’s departure was announced post the signing of the accounts and the issues regarding health and safety at the ground are not discussed in the accounts.

 

Conclusion.

In summarising the report, the timing of publishing the accounts is not surprising given the details that I have extracted. Late Friday publishing is normally done to avoid publicity. The auditor’s report continues with an emphasis of matter and a requirement of £7.2m financing with an imminent injection needed. The assumptions behind justifying the retention of going concern, are, in my opinion very challenging and should some of these objectives not be achieved, the financial consequences are ominous. The financing which is being provided exclusively by NOAL contradicts the comments made in the recent court hearing regarding the ability to provide funds. The objective of raising fresh funds via a share issue is critically dependent on Mr King not being required to carry through with the offer for the outstanding shares. A bad outcome with potential financial cold shouldering will result in a very dark outlook for the company, in the event that he remains chairman. The recent acquisition of players has effectively been financed and a deferred basis and the full effect of increased wages will weigh heavily in the results of the following financial year

 

I am grateful to my egg chasing buddy for taking the time out from his schedule to do this work for me.

Of course, the rigorous analysis in the foregoing is all his own work and I am merely publishing it.

However, I think it is fair to say that his take on the RIFC accounts isn’t nearly as sanguine as that which was gushed out last night by the usual suspects.

After going through his work I called Rugger Guy to express my gratitude and in the course of that conversation, I asked him to sum up of Sevco’s immediate financial future.

He used two words:

“Very precarious”.

68 thoughts on “Rugger Guy analyses RIFC 2017 acccounts”

  1. Puts the finances in a very clear position ,as long as you don’t use blue tinted glasses !

    Don’t be surprised if , after all the bones have been picked clean by the true blue vultures – that Ashley gets a VERY cheap advertising vehicle that he can easily pay ,to have new wheels fitted to.
    The guy is no financial mug… I’m sure he’s already checked his loose change jar …Just waiting till the price is lower than a submarine toilet in a sea of blue tears.
    Or at worst/ best , it’s a million or 3 to level a H&S eyesore then top up his retirement fund with a nice new Sports Direct shopping centre…

  2. King’s on his own.
    The rest of the board/concert party have done walking away.
    They have deferred repayment of loans and have to be commended for making them in the first place without security.
    So very shortly the loans total will be north of £20m…… To cover the monies spent over and above that earned from football activities.
    It’s not sustainable and you have to wonder what King’s end game is.
    He’s playing a dangerous game. It’s one story for the Court Of Session another for the auditors.
    One of the stories is a lie. I’ve read somewhere that the auditors going concern note was predicated on information supplied by the Directors, ditto the funds available from NOAL.
    Given the club is a loss making enterprise, dependent on soft loans, the auditors must have something more concrete than the word of the board, or King, that funds are available.
    Lord Bannatyne would no doubt like to be privy to the same information before making a judgement on King’s issue with the TOP!

  3. So if a share issue is voted for this time (if Ally and co. allow it) all the money raised will only pay off the in house loans. Even if the mugs fall for it and buy more shares the club gets no money to buy players or fix the stadium. I’d love to see how the prospectus puts a positive spin on that one. Whatever they do they lose money every year. They need a share issue every few years just to survive and even they idiots will say enough is enough eventually. CL millions are the only saviour and as long as we are enjoying that they can’t get near it. Long may it continue.

  4. Brilliant stuff Phil and thanks to Rugger guy for laying out the accounts in laymans terms.

    Things are looking bleak for the tribute act and I for one am loving it.

  5. When ashley transfers all buisines to the company instead of the club so his contract is safe tells you everything.he can clearly see its being streatched to its limits and will eventually snap.and future players will be paid for with player sales lol they will have to sell their best to buy anyone else.that wee fat striker hasnt scored for 7 games and the other is 38.the drunk mexican will never recoup the 3 mill paid for him. The only hope they have is a manager making them second best and hopefully put a value on players instead of it plumeting.im going to stock up on popcorn and watch them get pumped out of europe early again with no group stage money. Tick tock

  6. Thanks for the analysis Phil. I’m really struggling here to understand the end-game for Dave King though. Before too long there will be directors loans of $23m – all interest free with the intent to convert to equity. Why would King and the other directors want to effectively give this $23m away for nothing ?? Yes, they would gain full control of the club – but it’s patently not worth $23m, or anywhere near that ! Confused.com ! Is King really giving up this money interest-free for the love of Rangers ? Or is there something I’m not getting ?

    1. It could be that the actual ‘real-estate’ value of The Death Star and associated training grounds exceed the value of the Directors’ loans. When you consider that the South African fraudster really couldn’t give a flying fuck about the Peepul or their concerns it may be that his ultimate plan is simply to asset strip. Bring. On.

      1. Bingo!

        Hey guys we really tried hard over three years…… it can’t be done.

        Upmarket flats are needed here for all the media workers in the area. £40m kerching. And a new catholic chapel.

  7. The silence from the people ( or should that be peepul) who run our game…and the Media whose job it is to report on it… is not only staggering… it’s totally unacceptable.
    Here is a major Club…staggering from one crisis to another…aided by collusion and corruption… and nothing is said or done about it?
    God forbid that we ever descend to this level…but if we did ?
    There would be orgasms of delight from Hampden…BBC Scotland…STV…and the daily comics.
    Nah…This has gone on long enough…
    Time for it to be drawn to UEFA’s attention.

    1. Not everyone reading this supports Sellick. Just saying. Just thought “we” was a bit presumptuous Mike Bhoyle. Unless you were meaning the other 41 clubs?? I know many people from several club fan bases who e-mailed when the numpties in charge tried to re-introduce a new club into the second tier. We all know they were fast-tracked into the league of course, but hopefully a short term event.

      Jags fan hoping for a terminal outcome South of the river. The world would be a better place. Much better…. Their old stand would make lovely flats.

  8. Is “Rugger Guy” a big white rabbit called Harvey?
    One thing is for sure – he is no accountant!
    Obsessively obsessed by your obsession?
    Time to go back and see your therapist methinks!

  9. The biggest surprise about the accounts is that they really did spend that £10 million war chest last summer as they claimed. OK they’re paying on the never never, but if they had just decided to sit tight and work with what they had, then they would be almost breaking even (£4 million of loans this year, £3 million next, and £3 million towards the non Mike Ashley loss of £3.9 million). And the TAB ruling on Dave King was published way back in March, so the whole board should have seen that there would be problems relying on his money.

    There’s also no mention of any Warburton litigation, so presumably the lawyers have settled that, but I wonder if there was any sort of non-disparagement clause in the settlement. Warburton hasn’t spoken publicly about what happened. I wonder what he feels about all the mentions of the old management team resigning.

  10. Any truth that a 3rd Rangers incarnation would still have the purchased “history” but change the “club” badge from saying READY to RIDDY?

  11. Wow, wow, wow, great work Rugger Guy!

    To bastardise the Weather Girls’ biggest hit :
    “It’s raining debt! Hallelujah!
    It’s raining debt! Amen!”

    Player costs increased by 62% to £10.4m & that’s before the majority of Pedro’s 11 new summer signings? Ouch.

    Loans outstanding of £16m & another £4m needed before season’s end suggests a share issue next year – possible, probable, impossible, successful * delete as appropriate – seems to be the only goal the club/company is particularly good at aiming for.

    For an entity with such indebtedness, a favourable court decision re Takeover Panel judgement would appear to be the only outcome capable of preventing an insolvency event in the next 6-18 months.

    Thank God the club has a fella at the helm willing to spend “whatever it takes” eh?

    Thank God that RIFC is the only business in the world that doesn’t have to concern themselves with “contingencies” too. Cos they NEVER appear out of the blue down Ibrox way do they?!

    Oops, gotta go, that’s the delivery fella at the door with another order of jelly & ice cream. I’m stocking up 🙂

  12. How can people plan their Job, career and life based on a Dave King promise to fund their company for years to come?

    Do Ibrox employees get granted mortgages and car loans based on working there? From banks and building societies?

  13. What’s the major differences between the unaudited “management accounts” RIFC issued to the SFA for a Euro license and these honest Audited Accounts?

    Did the dodgy management accounts understate loans/debt?

    Do these accounts show RIFC should never have been granted a European football license in 2017? Where’s Auldheid?

    Clearly RIFC plc were non compliant with the three years rolling debt limit of €5million.

    So why did the SFA issue a license? It was unlawful and wrong. And they knew it.

    1. Great point.

      Who were the Scottish club who missed out at a crack at European football?

      Why aren’t they (and all other SPFL clubs) not up in arms about this?

      If the unaudited accounts painted an unfair & favourable picture, there should be serious questions asked of Regan & Co (yet again) !!!

    2. The unaudited interim accounts said RIFC were profitable in their last year, if I’m not mistaken.

      It’s corruption and Sporting Advantage through lies.

      The SFA knowingly goes along with it and probably assists them in preparing it, to meet uefa requirements.

      Unaudited interim accounts will be used again next summer. And so it goes on.

  14. Regarding Sevco loans/ debt and FFP.

    King cannot suggest this £15.9m +4 is pretend equity because he actually went to shareholders with a vote to convert debt to equity and the shareholders voted against it.

    That is significant for UEFA. It’s not even a majority shareholders intent at this time. It was rejected.

    He has not got a legal mandate to convert loans to equity so a very solid non compliance with FFP.

    I recall King partially blaming McCoist in the media as McCoist voted not to allow conversion.

  15. The two directors who got out of Sevco last summer could see it coming.

    It was only headed one way. One of them stated it.

    How long will King’s African Orphanage money last? The dark promise of his ill gotten gain is all they’ve got left.

    Not long until the cold carcass kicks in.

  16. Glib’s statement back in June was keen to stress all the positives of the SD deal but nothing mentioned about the £2.75m for the privilege.

  17. Just noticed in their accounts that the Rangers charity foundation donated money to ‘An Armed forces partnership’..? UVF?… UDA?.. UFF?… The mind does boggle.

  18. I almost want them alive to witness, nae, truth be told suffer, 10 in a row. Or even 12. Then let them be gone forever. A bad taste spat out of our country. But if they go earlier I’ll live with it!!

  19. The basis on which TRFC /RIFC continues to be allowed to operate by fellow SPFL clubs without challenge is astonishing.

    If remaining a going concern is dependent on football performance that can only bring in income if performance equals results, what chance of clubs playing TRFC whether to challenge for Europe or remain in the SPFL, who operate on a more sustainable and less risky basis, of being able to compete fairly?

    If TRFC’s survival is once again dependent on UEFA money what is likliehood of more honest mistakes or even falsifications in their application for a UEFA licence to ensure access to that income?

    In short a return to 2011 when everything that could be done to ensure their survival was done and only McCoist’s failings as a manager stopped UEFA access?
    Celtic are so far ahead it should be some time before CL money is at risk but what about all the other clubs?

    Are their supporters not only going to stand by and watch a club operating way beyond their financial means in a manner their own clubs will not do but pay their clubs for the privilege of being shafted?

    These accounts should be passed to UEFA by the SPFL and scrutinised by them to see if they do comply with UEFA FFP as SFA cannot be trusted to do it.

    1. Auldheid, how can you pontificate to all other clubs fans taking action when your fans have done squat and were cheated of 17 titles through unlawful EBTs by RFC?

      The Supreme Court ruling has automatically made EBT use cheating.

      Yet CFC fans cannot finance a two day Judicial Review to have it sorted.

      Pathetic whimpering from you.

    2. Why can’t Celtic or any other club just ask UEFA to scrutinise these accounts for FFP conformity?

      The SPFL and SFA have no appetite to do so.

      1. Come ON, lads, does any one of you really seriously believe for one single moment that UEFA DON’T KNOW what’s going on in Scotland and Scottish fitba concerning the favours and corruption surrounding this secret handshake sectarian club?!

        When UEFA themselves are part of the secret handshake sectarian club?!

        Auldheid and the Bhoys have ALREADY INFORMED UEFA OF THE ILLEGALITIES of 2011, they have it in writing for well over a year by now and what have the great UEFA done about it ..?

        Sweet Fuck All, SFA, they don’t give a monkeys, UEFA are in on the stitch up and this is plain for all of us with even half a brain to see.

        The criminality and corruption on behalf of this totem pole to sectarianism is INTERNATIONAL, make no mistake about it, and this year’s illegal Euro licence also proved it.

        This is not the 19th century, where it takes 5 days to get a letter to UEFA HQ, these guys have been fully aware of the Long Fraud being worked out of Scottish football since Bernard Tapie ‘outbid’ David Murray for the inaugural Champions League title in the early 90s, ffs.

        Seriously, I can’t believe that ANYONE can’t see past this ‘UEFA Saviour’ bullshit, it’s way past time that we all woke up to the sheer scale of this criminality that is a cancer at the heart of our great game and has been in the planning since at least the mid 80s.

        And there’ll be no 10 In A Row if this cancer isn’t effectively cut out and disposed of, you can be sure of that, and I would expect all Scotland’s true fitba fans to do something about it.

        No, wait, sorry, scrap that, they’re too busy not believing that it’s true to EVER do anything about it so no wonder the Billy boys continue to get away with it.

        We should change the words of the anthem to Scotland The Impotent.

  20. One thing I don’t understand is the silence of minority shareholders.

    If the continued viability of a company I had invested in was dependent on cash injections from someone who has told a court he is ‘penniless’, I’d be seriously worried.

  21. I see King / NOAL is to provide future financing (according to the accounts so it must be true….). Does this confirm the other Directors are no longer willing to or capable of providing this finance?

  22. Phil,
    What can you tell us about NOAL?
    What names are in NOAL? Where are they based?
    I can understand the 3 Bears putting cash in (no not really) but are NOAL putting money in without security?

    Great work by Rugger Guy

  23. Let’s think about this, they now depend solely on King punting his family wealth in indefinitely.

    No one else promises funds.

    They need a first tranche now. And £4m to June 2018 of King’s money..

    King says he’ll do it.

    We know he lies.

    They are now in a life or death situation that depends upon Dave King being a truthful man. How deliciously ironic.

    I think they’re f*cked. It’s over.

  24. If King, or any funds controlled by him, are invested into Sevco, or indeed anywhere else for that matter, could, or in fact should, he face perjury charges? He surely cannot claim in the High Court to be penniless and then be the prime mover in giving a loan North of £7m to ANYONE!

  25. The accounts cover the 12 months to 30/6/17, therefore any outgoing transfer fees won’t be included.
    Also not included is the pay off for Pedro and his management team. I would have thought that Dallas Campbell are not to happy that they signed off on the accounts not knowing that Pedro would be getting sacked as this would have been commented on in their notes to the accounts.
    Add in the increased wage bill and you are already looking at a position next year worse than the current results.
    Break even my erchie!
    The £7m odd required to stem the cash flow shortage is predicated on European involvement …….first round knock out or Europa Cup Group stages.
    King appears to have forgotten that his counsel only a few weeks ago was informing Lord Bannatyne of his client’s descent into penury and that NOAL had hee haw to do with him.
    However for the benefit of the auditors then the King family has an interest in NOAL and they will fund the £7m as and when required! It’s very confusing. Does Dallas Campbell not read the papers and are they not aware of the TOP v King in the Court of Session?
    It’s one thing telling porkies it’s another when they are there for everyone to see.
    Should M’lud not be calling King and his counsel before him to explain this sudden turnaround in King’s fortunes and his family’s stated interest in NOAL as clearly outlined in the annual financial report signed off by the auditor.

    😳😥

  26. Forget about Euro competition income presumptions.

    They do not conform to UEFA FFP rules.

    King stretches the truth beyond elastic limit on this.

  27. More than a few takeaways, King asserts that because they view the £15.9m debt as intended equity then that in their minds meets UEFA ffp regulations.

    UEFA ffp regs are clear. It’s debt until it is swapped into equity. Not before. King lies.

    The whole future loans to stay alive now officially sits solely on the promises of Dave King. Promises of Dave King….. promises of Dave King…… to stay alive….

    No other Directors now promise anything.

    £4m is required from NOAL right now. Will he pay?

    Deid fur Christmas.

    Any new manager must take heed of zero new player budget. It’s sell to buy time. Only King’s promises keeps it alive. This from a proven liar who has just lied about meeting FFP rules!!!!!!

    Can the SFA please correct the RIFC chairman’s statement that these accounts meet UEFA FFP Rules requirements? You’re supposed to govern this stuff.

    No stock exchange would allow this shambles onto their listing. No Nomad would represent this.

    1. doesn’t this leave CCK able to proclaim that he is willing to put money in but the takeover panel/ courts are stopping him from doing so. The Admin event occurs and he walks away blameless and not having to actually come up with the readies. He’s a hero and everybody hates rangers. Its a Fenian plot!

  28. “Significantly, the sole provider of funding is NOAL. In the accounts of RIFC to June 2016, NOAL was referred to as being controlled by Dave King.”

    So would this be the same Dave King described in court just the other week – by his own lawyer – as “penniless”?

    Crikey, it’s just lucky you don’t need any funds to provide £7.2 million worth of funds, otherwise they’d be royally screwed.

    No reference to Her Majesty intended, of course.

  29. Thanks for that detailed and neutral analysis that was done on RIFC audited accounts.
    Certainly highlights a lot of things that are not likely to be handled by the media in Scotland.
    However, my questions are perhaps naïve but I have very little knowledge of accountancy.
    I gather that RIFC has a subsiduary footballing entity TRFC (previously Sevco Scotland):

    – how do these latest RIFC accounts affect TRFC ?
    – does TRFC have separate audited accounts or are these include in and clearly identified in the RIFC accounts ?
    – what is the SFA’s role regarding the RIFC and TRFC ?
    – how does the SFA judge the capability of the footballing entity TRFC to meet the fit & proper criteria to compete in Scottish football?

    Any light that can be shed on these questions will be much appreciated.

    1. These accounts are for”the group as a whole” so encompass both TRFC and RIFC.

      I think the money trail from RIFC to TRFC is simply capital transfer by the 100% shareholder. They are not construed as loans as far as the accounts are concerned.

      In terms of shares then so long as the shareholders give the directors the power they can allot shares and create new ones until the cows come home. Of course this dilutes existing shareholders so it isn’t a given and especially as all they are doing is swapping debt for equity there’s no new money. Quite how King has created a new breed of shareholder called a quasi shareholder is beyond me.

      What manager wants to take this mess on when the forward view is no new money. At all. So any mention of a”war chest” or extensive transfer budget can be quashed dead.

      I mean relying on DCK to provide ongoing life support. I don’t think he even knows when he’s lying any more.

      1. Quasi shareholder or quasi equity is a ruse to redefine the £15.9m loans (debt) as equity to meet Financial Fair Play Rules.

        It’s a lie.

        The majority shareholders at an EGM voted to NOT convert loans to equity.

        King has no legal approval to proceed with this.

        The £15.9m are LOANS and it breaks UEFA FFP.

  30. If the loans are converted to shares then what price are the shares valued at when they are being converted? After this conversion is completed then how many unallocated shares remain for sale? Does there come a point where they run out of shares to sell or can they just keep on issuing them for as long as investors (sorry, I meant to say mugs) will continue to purchase them? Surely share issues cannot be never ending whenever the kitty needs a top up? Or is the secret to have a tame auditor? Does the auditing firm sign off the accounts or is it an individual accountant that puts his name to it?

    1. Price? Whatever they can sell them for.

      The limit of shares is set by the AGM and is in effect unlimited.

      The top up is called a rights issue and can continue for ever if someone wants to pay. Normally the company increases in value because the money is used to buy another company or increase production not just cover ongoing losses. Increase in the number of shares needs to be authorised by the shareholders.

  31. As rugger guy correctly points out, most curious aspect is around conti ued funding by NOAL. And as he piinted out, it flies in face of recent court case testimony.

    Shirley’ there is a stark conflict between testimony he was skint and had no control over NOAL and what is presented in these accounts. If he has enough control over NOAL to be able to vouch for continued investment by them (In millions) then surely that contradicts his testimony in court?

    Is it possible that Mr. King has been caught telling ‘porkies’ again. Well I never….

  32. A stinking, rancid corpse of a club using shady accounting tricks to fool the gullible. What a mess. Totally embarrassing.

    1. I can help you with this.
      King is lying to everybody.
      That aside,there’s something that I’d like to ask Rugger Guy(I appreciate his input on matter financial wrt Newco.Many thanks).
      Outwith the now stated £15.9m owed to directors & the minimun borrowing requirement of £7.2m(£4m needed before the AGM),there is also some £16m or so owed by TRFC to RIFC.Easy to call this unimportant as it’s inter-company debt but in an insolvency scenario,surely the shareholders of RIFC,especially Charles Greens friends like Blue Pitch or River & Mercantile would like their money back.
      Question is,how would/could this debt impact on any insolvency event?.

      1. RIFC PLC sells TRFC LTD (The Club) to somebody for £16m to get their money back. They then fold RIFC PLC and shut it down.

        The new owner/ operator continues to run The Rangers FC (formerly Sevco) as a subsidiary company in his group. Anyone for New Murray Group Ownership?

        1. Could happen that way if they found an idiot with £16M+ they wanted to simply throw away.

          But why would anyone want to buy a loss making club with no line of funding from a financial institution? And then fund continued losses?

          The assets are probably not worth that much and so you are simply buying it for the land. But no one would risk angering the crazies by actually doing that. No, the end game is coming here, only a question of time and pressure!

  33. Rugger guy knows his shit, that read like a thesis. Meanwhile across town WATP, Same club Timmy and turning the volume up when Tina Turner comes on should be enough to shoot it down.

  34. In other words Phil teetering on the brink of the precipice…..a total shambles of a club who no one would miss if they went under

    1. Well done city guy. My heed is is all over the place with his analysis,but I get it. There fecked. Tips hat ya ya phil. Well played

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *