RIFC Accounts C.S.I.

Prior to a more detailed look at the Rangers Lite accounts – a forensic Crime Scene Investigation if you will – one takes pause to congratulate Brendan Rodgers and his History Bhoys. Regular readers will note that I coined this term when Celtic equalled Willy Maley’s record. With yesterday’s commanding win in Perth they have written their names in the British football record books. Thoughts inevitably turn to when this record-breaking run will end. Can they go through a second consecutive season undefeated? The style in which they have achieved this record, regularly scoring 3 or more goals, suggests that even some honest mistakes from Bobby Madden would not be enough to derail their trophy-laden goods train. Is a back-to-back treble on the cards?

Aberdeen’s draw was not the end of the world. Being only 3 points adrift of The Invincibles after 12 games is no mean feat. McInnes, and everyone else for that matter, now know that the basket of assets in Govan is a basket case. It would be a graveyard for any ambitious manager. McInnes will keep his powder dry until a better offer than Sunderland comes along.

As for Rodgers the sky’s the limit. He might even be considered for the dead man’s shoes Arsenal job when Wenger inexorably drops his clogs.

However I have not come to praise Rodger’s Caesar. I have come to bury King. I have had a look around at other exercises in analysis, including Martin ‘Engine-Room Subsidiary‘ Williams having a go in The Herald, but they fall short in capturing the Criminal Zeitgeist at Ibrox.

No less than a Chartered Financial Analyst stepped up this morning on our site with the following take:

(1) much has already been made of the £3M payment made to Ashley to rip up the retail agreement. If you look at page 45 of the report, you will see that Rangers Retail Limited earned slightly north of £1M after tax last year. The year before showed a similar, slightly smaller sum. 50% accrues toward Sports Direct, and 50% goes to RIFC. So the £3M payoff to terminate the agreement represents approximately 6 years of future profits that Sports Direct would have expected to receive. This is essentially a buyout. Ashley got the full value of the deal, upfront, guaranteed, and also the opportunity to sign a new deal for the same time period! This is a much different story than what was presented last June. Moreover, King arranged for Real Rangers Men to buy Ashley’s shares at 27p while he was preparing his defense from the Takeover Panel case. Remember, part of his defense is that the ‘market’ price of the shares is more than the 20p he would be required to offer, and nobody would take that offer. But the question arises, at least in my mind, whether that 27p was really the market rate at that time, and whether this should be treated as part of the cost of terminating the Retail contract with Sports Direct. Did King arrange for Ashley’s shares to be purchased at above market rates, and do so as part of the overall compensation offer of terminating the Retail deal, simply so he could create his own feeble defense before the crown?

(2) Looking at the Key Performance Indicators on page 12, one thing that is conspicuous by its absence is any mention of the Europa League Qualifier played at Ibrox on June 29. That match is obviously part of the 2017-18 season, but the Accounts are for the 12 months ended June 30, not for the 2016-17 season. That’s a small distinction, but it matters to accountants and auditors. The revenue recognition principal is for matchday income to be recognized as matches are played. Yet there doesn’t appear to be any disclosure that Rangers recognized the revenue from this match in their accounts.

(3) Page 36 outlines the assumptions they used in the forecast period when they tested for impairment of fixed assets (Ibrox & Murray Park) and intangible assets (brand value). This year’s disclosure is more detailed than prior years, and a couple points stuck out: (a) their baseline assumption is that they will make the group stages of the Europa League at least twice in the next 5 years, and failure to do so would result in an impairment charge against their fixed assets, and (b) their player salaries can grow by no more than 3% above their forecast or they will be forced to impair their assets. From experience, I can tell you that 3% for an exercise like this is considered rounding error. But more than anything, these two things indicate one major conclusion to me: their forecast assumptions are right on the breaking point of being credible and yet they just barely avoided an impairment charge.

(4) Trade Receivables, disclosed in Note 14 on page 46, contained a detail that I found highly unusual, though not necessarily problematic. They are owed £12.5M from merchant service providers relating to season ticket sales. As this is over the summer period when season tickets are being renewed, that would be the likely culprit and an obvious explanation. However, IFRS rules prohibit the creation of a receivable when performance obligations have not been met — i.e. revenue recognized, assets transferred, etc. In other words, this £12.5M is cash that is owed to RIFC for matches played in the 2016-17 season. Going back to the KPI’s on page 12, total season ticket revenue was £13.6M in total for the season. It seems more than a little unusual that the overwhelming majority of season ticket revenue from last season still had not been collected by June 30. Something else must be going on here, and the obvious explanation is that it does indeed represent a receivable for the upcoming season. But that would be a pretty flagrant violation of IFRS accounting rules that a first year accounting student would spot immediately. Maybe someone else can chime in here…

(5) On page 39, we can see revenue was £29.2M, and ongoing structural cash operating expenses consisting of staff costs, Other Operating Costs (policing, stewards, pitch maintenance, and other matchday costs), and hire of plant and machinery totaled £29.7M. RIFC are operating at a permanent, structural, cash flow loss. And that excludes expenses for player acquisition, regardless of whether one wants to measure that via amortization or cash outlay, as well as expenses for other capital outlays, interest expense, one time charges to terminate the Sports Direct deal, one time charges that occur annually to fire their manager and his staff, etc.

(6) Lastly, the disclosure of NOAL and the relationship to King found on page 57 changed from prior years.
Last year’s disclosure: “ Oasis Asset Limited is a company controlled by the Group Chairman, Mr D King.”
This year’s disclosure: “New Oasis Asset Limited is a company in which the Group Chairman, Mr D King and his immediate family are interested.”
When one looks at the last sentence of this year’s report, we learn that NOAL has extended the repayment date of their £6.7M interest-free loan to July 2019. Ordinarily, trustees would be obliged, by law, to invest the trust assets for a financial gain for the benefit of the beneficiaries, particularly if one of them is penniless. It’s a legal quagmire for the trustee, and the only way for the trustee to avoid any legal problems would be to obtain assurances from the beneficiaries, in writing, that they won’t hold the trustee accountable for such negligence. But one thing is for certain: I am sure that such consent has ABOSULTLEY NOTHING AT ALL to do with the change in language regarding one Mr D
 King being merely ‘interested’ in the trust as opposed to it being outright ‘controlled’ by him a year ago.


King and his hired mouth-on-a-stick Slim Shady Traynor have been caught with skid marks on their grey Y-fronts after this forensic debagging by Benjamin. So much for a hard-fought favourable result with SDI. King paid Ashley off in full for six years of the seven years notice period, with the final year ticking down as I write.

There is also the curious case of James Blair recommending the purchase of Ashley’s shares to Club Tropicana at 27p a throw, which one could reasonably conclude was part and parcel of the severance deal.

Ashley has skewered King, turned him over in a rotisserie, and stuffed an apple in his mouth for good measure.

You would like me to be a trustee in NOAL? How quintessentially white of you David. Do I get fries with that?”

As I wrote some time ago, James Blair attended the Takeover Appeal Board hearing where a price of 20p was established, but as he changed hats when checking in as secretary of Club Tropicana, he recommended the significantly higher price of 27p. I’m sure this salient detail was not lost on Blair as he reviewed King’s affidavit to the Court of Session. You cannot keep a good career criminal down.

One would like to think that the £12.5m owed in point 4 of Benjamin’s analysis has not been ringfenced by a Qatari factor? Perish the very thought.

I like nothing more than some semantic juggling as in point 6. Is King so slippery that he is the Limpopo All-Comers Champion of Jello Wrestling? Is he impossible to pin down, just like the roofs of three stands which require major refits? £800,000 might be a sufficient quantum for a bribe to secure a safety certificate but it won’t make any material difference to the precarious three roofs.

Which leads me to the final conclusion of this piece. It’s unequivocally evident that the concert party directors are all-in. They are tapped out. Their last concession was to postpone the due date on their loans.

The future of Rangers Lite is in Career Criminal King’s hands. What could possibly go wrong?


49 thoughts on “RIFC Accounts C.S.I.”

  1. If the survival of the club rests on the shoulders and pocket of Dave King you would hope that he was honest, smart, wealthy and generous. Oh dear. Oh dear.

      1. “Honest, smart , wealthy and generous ”

        Not how I or I would imagine the late great Tommy Burns or Wim Jansen describe wee freaky Fergus.

        Compared to servo anyone would appear saintly but McCann was a piece of work also. He walked away with £40 million and never left a penny for youth development.

        I proudly booed him and would do so again.

  2. Hi JJ made following payment on Friday. Did you receive it?
    Hope I haven’t inadvertently made a contribution to the Klan via some tribute ( appropriate I guess) jonhjamesspeakeasy site
    Cheers Andrew

    JJ: Received with thanks Andrew.

  3. oh what a joy to hear,slippery dave has trounced the club once more.the club that just keeps giving,cheers jj thats my day made.

  4. £12.5m of season ticket sales for this season have not been received by 30th June? Is there a comparator with last season which could be used as a benchmark? Ticketus?

  5. Hard to see how they can complete the season in their current format based on these accounts. If Bannatyne doesn’t succumb to masonic leanings then another financial Armageddon looms. As usual the SFA and SPFL are silent. The plus side is that should Sevco follow the path of their predecessor then surely it is game over for Regan and Doncaster.

  6. JJ – I’d actually clarified the question on the income recognition on the old thread before reading this. It actually looks alright. It’s simply offset by deferred revenue which gets released as the games are paid. The receivable is just the cash collection. It needs to be a separate asset and liability as they are different counter parties. Thought I’d be better off noting that here.

    As regards discounted cash flow projections for the purposes of impairment (and valuation of certain assets) – this is something I’m very familiar with working as I do with investment fund financials. The comments made are good value. The way these are most often prepared, if done right, is to take a range of possible outcomes of key variables. At one end the most optimistic but plausible of these and the other the most pessimistic. An impairment (or if used for valuation – misstatement) would be measured as the difference between the possible value given closest to that range.

    What that means is that even taking all the most optimistic reasonable scenarios they have only just managed to decide it’s not impaired. My bigger question would be “how?”. I’d love to see them projections as turning annual operating losses of £6m into any sort of positive cash flows (not even counting the capital investment needed to the stadium) is a hell of a trick.

    1. TJ, thanks for your thoughts.

      I actually considered what you’re saying regarding the receivable before I submitted the initial comment. I think the most likely explanation is that the offset to the receivable is indeed deferred revenue liability.

      The issue that confounds me is that ordinarily deferred revenue is recognized when one party has paid, usually in cash, for the transaction, but the other side of the transaction has yet to meet its contractual obligations. The liability arises because RIFC would be obliged to refund customers the cash that RIFC already has if they do not play the matches. Likewise, the receivable normally represents amounts owed to RIFC for completed obligations but not yet paid.

      What we think is showing in the accounts is both a receivable and deferred revenue liability for the upcoming season, but where customers have neither paid RIFC, and obviously RIFC hasn’t played the matches. Normal accounting practice would be to ignore both as neither side has performed their side of the bargain. It represents nothing more than a promise by both sides to perform in the future, but there’s no enforceable contract in place between customers and the club as of the balance sheet date. At least that’s the way I see it…

      The upshot of that part doesn’t amount to a hill of beans. Worst case scenario for RIFC is that both receivables and deferred revenue liability get restated lower. Unless of course there’s something else going on that isn’t apparent, and that’s the piece that I think needs to be looked at, because I can’t for one minute believe that an auditor would have signed off on the receivables without obligations being met nor the deferred revenue without cash being received. That would be malpractice of the first order from the auditor if they didn’t catch that. But again, zero real world impact to the club if that malpractice indeed occurred.

      1. I think the receivable is credit card season books and possibly financing (ticketus style). Should come in a contractual lump sum.

  7. Accumulated losses of close to £50 million since 2012 …
    And Look where they are quality wise on the field and off … dearie me!
    And All Funded by IPO investment and directors Loans with much more to come .
    The modern overspending Rangers sired by DM 30 or so years ago just keeps rolling along fully supported by all and sundry including our governors.
    Amazing phenomenon!

    1. I’m calling it astonishing.

      The basis on which TRFC/TRIFC continues to be allowed by fellow SPFL clubs without challenge is truly astonishing.

      If remaining a going concern is dependent on football performance that can only produce income brings winning results , what chance of clubs playing TRFC , whether to challenge for Europe or remain in the SPFL Premier, who operate on a sustainable and less risky basis, of being able to challenge fairly?
      If TRFC’s survival (for that is what is at stake with their mad policy) is once again dependent on UEFA money, what is the likelihood of more honest mistakes as in 2010/11 or even falsifications in their application for a UEFA licence to ensure access to that life sustaining 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 access to desperately need UEFA income.

      Celtic are so far ahead it should be some time before CL money is at risk to them but what about other clubs vying for EL places?

      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, but pay for the privilege of being shafted?

      When it comes to ST renewal should supporters not ask their Directors if they trust the SFA and on what basis, before they spend one thin dime? With some of the same personnel still at Ibrox as brought about the demise of RFC and the same mindset still at play, what assurances could Directors of all clubs give their support that the playing field has been levelled in that only income earned from football and associated business is used to fund playing squads?

      The accounts should be passed to UEFA by the SPFL and scrutinised by them to see if they do comply with UEFA FFP as the SFA simply cannot be trusted to do a proper job.

      This insanity has to stop and only supporters of all clubs can do it.

      1. A
        We all know their license should be withdrawn .
        They are just too powerful in Scottish society never mind Scottish football and everyone more or less is terrified of standing up to them
        DM and DK worked that out and know that they were ,and will be ,allowed to do more of less anything they like . Crime after crime!
        per My analogy posted on here a month or two ago it’s like the Miller gang controlling and bullying the town in the movie High Noon
        Only one very big good guy can stand up to them and where we are in the movie is right now he hasn’t done it yet and none of his townsfolk look like helping him out anytime soon

        I don’t believe the fans of other clubs will lift a finger on this . The media have successfully buried everything for the vast majority and fans just want to get on with supporting their own clubs
        Been saying it for 2 years on this site CFC and their wealthy fans will need to via extensive JRs etc blow up the SFA and get everything cleaned up and sorted in the process
        I personally don’t think they will do it because they are in a good place and don’t need the huge hassle.
        I really hope I am wrong

  8. Wow JJ- another superb analysis and hat off to Benjamin. It really can’t be long now can’t it? On another matter, are au fait with what if anything is happening as regards the much anticipated JR? I know the legal process usually moves at a snail’s pace, but I’ve not seen or heard anything about this for some time. Cheers, TS

  9. Is it some kind of coincidence that the advert below the Rangers accounts is for Parks BMW encouraging me to part with my hard earned after tax cash?

  10. From his time at Sevco Glib has not come across as a strong businessman, a smart guy or a performance deliverer.

    Inarticulate gob sh*te who doesn’t deliver comes to mind.

    Eternal litigation loser.

    There’s been no trophies under CCK.

    Ashley has wiped the floor with him.

    CCK caved in and told fans to buy the merch. He caved in and told club1872 (fans) to pay Ashley 27p for his shares.

    He is unfit and brings derision to the club.

    He directs the club executives with wrongful decisions that cost millions.

    He lies publicly.

    The club suffers huge reputational damage.

    The other Directors have forced his hand. He is weak.

    Time to go. A thoroughly disastrous period under King.

  11. There is only one “executive” director and he alone signs every report and the accounts – and by inference makes the decisions and takes responsibility, I suppose.

  12. JJ – Usual monthly amount donated ending in 7026. Not much, but again enough to wet your beak. Is there any light at the end of this particularly dark tunnel ?

    JJ: Thank you. The Bannatyne verdict will be instructive. If it goes against him and he pulls his finance, the house of cards will collapse.

  13. Sean O’Brien

    There would be no Celtic in its current form without Fergus McCann.

    All the other “Celtic men” wanted the power and plaudits with the input of very small sums.

    I was in the room when push came to shove and it was Fergus, and only Fergus, who stepped up to the plate.

    “Ask the president” Tommy, wasn’t nearly the saint he is made out to be, but he, sadly, is no longer with us and I choose to remember all his wonderful contributions.

    I sold a large chunk of my shares at the time Fergus sold his and made a lot of money. Football shares at that point were at their peak and would only ever go down afterwards, apart from preference shares of which I still enjoy a healthy dividend. It is used to fund the purchase my season seats and as such put directly back into the club.

    There is one man in Scotland, whom if he betrayed the trust and confidence of Fergus, who would set you straight in exactly what he had to do prior and after the takeover of Celtic. If you were in possession of all the facts you would not begrudge the man a thing, not least for the fact he saved Celtic.

    1. Hear hear Fergus McCann should have a statue erected at CP We would not have the magnificent Stadium we have or the infrastructure we have now Fergus McCann saved us from going down the pan and did what he said he would do – he had a business plan which worked to the letter Of course he made a profit he is a business man Oh how Sevco wish dearly for a Fergus The one thing I have to disagree about tho is Tommy Burns a nicer man you couldnt meet He is loved and respected by all A man of kindness and faith who would never leave you without saying God Bless

    2. I bought £650.00 worth of shares from freaky fergus and within no time they were worthless. You , who can afford a serious amount of shares for a serious amount of money were well looked after by McCann , it’s sad the money men were looked after and the poorer among us who saved up to buy even £650.00 worth were told to stick our certificate in a frame put it up on the wall and shut up about it’s lack of value , while money men , like you , are still getting your dividends out of our club and you have the cheek and audacity to make snide comments about a man like Tommy Burns , shame on you ?

      1. TB notwithstanding “boo-ing” Fergus is ignorance personified. I was squirming in the stadium as it happened.
        Without Fergus there would be NO CELTIC. It’s a binary argument. The man was utterly forthright from the get- go and was true to his word.
        This man built the foundations for what you currently experience

    3. I almost came to blows with the guy who sat next to me when he booed Fergus. Unlike Sean O’Brien he admitted to me two seasons later he was wrong and wished he hadn’t done it. My late brother in law had a meeting with Fergus a couple of years before he came back to save Celtic. He was highly impressed with Fergus’ vision of a Celtic village supplying hospitality and accommodation within a Celtic Park village. Sound familiar? I have little time for Wim’s opinions while recognising his achievement in stopping the ten. I have no direct knowledge of Tommy Burns but everything I have heard of him from those who knew him well says to me that Tommy would not have regarded himself as a saint and would probably have thought the notion sacrilegious. I am in no doubt however that he was a thoroughly decent man.

  14. Will Sutton now apologise and withdraw his statement that McInnes WILL join Sevco and the money IS there?

    Regardless of Jabba’s spin in today’s mail to provide post accounts upbeat pish.

    He clearly has no inside information, no corroborating sources, chose a position and decided to assert it. Just the same as Delahunt.

    Rank amateurs.

    I suppose all lies are small ones after the same club claim after a Liquidation. Men of zero integrity. Lying comes easily to them as they slavishly follow the Glib and Jabba path in life.

    When I see all of them on tv, every one of them, I think liars and have no respect for any of them.

    Burn in hell chumps.

  15. I totally agree with the ” General”. Fergus did everything he said he would, invest heavily then walk away with a very large profit, in a reasonably short time.

    Everyone who had dealings with Fergus said the exact same thing, that he was completely straight. Thank God for Fergus, no Fergus, no Celtic, they should build a statue to him, Hail Hail.

  16. James, thanks for publishing my earlier comment. I think a bright light is being shined where it is badly needed, and football fans across Scotland owe you a debt for all your work the past few years.

    I want to amend one of my comments. Regarding the buyout of the SD deal, I was working under the assumption that there were 6 years left on that deal, not 7. The upshot is that Ashley did NOT get the full value upfront in cash if there were 7, and not 6 as I had assumed, years left on that deal. UNLESS… we also conclude that the share sale was indeed part of the overall transaction.

    From an accounting standpoint, that would get really hairy with respect to the accounts that were just published, so I want to set that aside for now. What I want to focus on is the economic substance and the real-world consequences.

    Rewind back to June when all this is taking place and put yourself in the room with King and Ashley as they’re negotiating this deal. Ashley wants full value of the deal in cash before he walks away, and King wants two things. (1) Sports Direct and Mike Ashley to piss off, and (2) Ashley to sell his shares to a more ‘management friendly’ party who will not (again) block proposal 11 at their annual shareholder meeting that will allow the board to issue new shares to whomever they want, thus gaining additional control over the club by cherry picking who gets the shares. The problem is that King can’t buy the shares himself because of the Takeover Panel inquiry, and the 3 Bears probably didn’t want to get involved for the same reason. So he arranges for another director and Julian Wolhardt to buy the shares. But now comes the tricky part: what’s the price? There’s no open market for the shares, so it comes down to a negotiation of whatever the buyer and seller think they’re worth. Ashley probably looks at the recent set of accounts (the ones from 2015-16) plus what he knows about what has happened in the interim (the Barton buyout; the Warburton mess, the hiring of Pedro and his staff, the big summer spending splurge, etc) and concludes that RIFC will never, ever, turn a profit in a gazillion years. So he values the shares at 15p (and I’m picking a number out of thin air here). Presumably at this point in the negotiations King has agreed to the £3M cash payout, but Ashley wants another £0.5M for the 7th year. So they do some quick algebra and determine that Ashley needs to receive a price of 27p to agree walking away. That is, 15p for the rightful value of the shares according to the seller, plus another 12p — or £0.5M — for the SD contract termination.

    So a couple caveats here. (1) I haven’t looked up how many shares were ultimately sold by Ashley nor the split between Club 1872 and Wolhardt. (2) because of that, I just made up a number for the supposed share price that Ashley would have considered fair value. Those two are dependent upon one another, so if you go to press with this, those details will need to be ironed out.

    There’s a few relevant upshots from all this though, and, again, I’m going to set aside the accounting implications on the annual accounts. That is a hairy subject given the complexities of this as I have presented it as well as the introduction of a related party (Club 1872, chaired by a RIFC board member) transaction.

    (1) Ashley ultimately got the full value he sought. £3M in cash from RIFC plus an additional £0.5M consideration for his shares over and above what he considered to be fair market value. Ashley exits stage left, setting up for a successful conclusion to proposal 11 at this years annual meeting.
    (2) the working assumption by King and the board that the accounts are in compliance with UEFA FFP. That has been disputed across the broader Celtic blogosphere, but if RIFC are working under the assumption that proposal 11 is passed and new shares are issued, the rolling losses allowed by UEFA increase from €5M over 3 years to €30M if the difference is covered by equity contributions including the conversion of soft loans into equity. Based on what we now know, I BELIEVE THAT RIFC CLEARLY VIOLATED THE FFP REGULATIONS FOR THE 2016-17 SEASON, BUT WILL BE IN COMPLIANCE FOR THE 2017-18 SEASON after a successful share issue later this year. Also remember that the FFP regulations allow clubs to ignore spending in certain areas (primarily fixed assets such as stadium improvements, and also youth team activities), so the allowed losses as referenced in the published accounts is actually greater than the €5M/€30M referenced above.
    (3) as it pertains to the Takeover Panel proceedings, the 27p paid for Ashley’s shares do not represent fair market value IF PART OF THE PRICE WAS PAID TO SATISFY THE VERBAL OR WRITTEN TERMS OF THE SD TERMINATION. What we know is that the share transaction occurred simultaneously to the ripping up of the SD deal and was likely one of the conditions imposed by King, but that the price was dictated by Ashley as part of the OVERALL agreement to terminate the SD deal. Ashley didn’t care how much came from the share sale vs. how much came from RIFC cash so long as he got what he believed to be the full value of both his shares and the SD contract. The 27p paid for Ashley’s share DO NOT REPRESENT FAIR MARKET VALUE as the share sale was intertwined with the consideration paid for the termination of the SD deal. As such, the Takeover Panel should disregard this share sale in their deliberations as the ‘market price’ for the shares, and the shares alone, cannot be determined.

    1. The SD deal had a 7 year notice period and RIFC (CCK) made a big noise in 2016 about ending the deal. Therefor, I would say that at June 2017 there was 6 years left.

  17. Ref item 2. The accounts, page 9, stayed that the financial statements are up to 28th June so that each season is kept apart from one another in the accounts. Whether this is correct or not I can’t say but there is an explanation.

    The thing not mentioned which seems interesting to me is the details in note 11 what it seems that there were £10 MM in additional player assets with only £2MM sold. It isn’t clear where or when this is to be paid.

    For NOAL to become the sole lendor going forward beggars belief. Is DCK simply trying to become a controlling creditor? If the expected judgement goes against him this source of donations must simply dry up. Even now they’re in for over £6MM!

    Quite an amazing set of results.

    1. Grab the grass, nice catch on page 9. I glossed over King’s letter as I didn’t expect him to reveal anything useful or factual not otherwise supported in the actual accounts.

      That actually raises a red flag for audit though in my mind, and I believe it forms suficient basis for regulators to call their audit firm to the carpet.

      If you look at page 33 on the accounting footnotes and the basis of presentation, they clearly state that matchday revenue is recognized as games are played, full stop. No ifs, ands, or buts. That’s a pretty bright line test for an auditor, and the full accounts, except for this one little matter, is for the year ending June 30. RIFC has essentially cherry picked a match that occurred in that time frame and deliberately chose to leave it out of the accounts in direct violation of their own stated revenue recognition policy, and they’ve also failed to disclose it in the footnotes.

      This, in conjunction with the receivable issue I highlighted, makes it pretty plain that the auditor is either not doing their job or is doing so incompetently. There are bright lines in IFRS that are being violated, and the auditor isn’t catching them.

      And even if the board wanted to highlight that Europa qualifier and present the matchday revenue as part of the 2017-18 results instead there is a simple alternative that would be acceptable for accounting purposes: present the financials as IFRS requires, and then present a pro-forma income statement that has that match excluded in the management letter or as a suppliament on the investor relations website. Companies in all industries do this ALL THE TIME and it’s no big deal to do so, and frequently they also adjust for other one-time items or anything else they don’t like or find embarrassing. It’s basically a get-out-of-jail-free card that management can use to present whatever financial picture they want, and they can do so as long as they publish it alongside the official accounts that conform to IFRS and provide a line by line reconciliation between the two sets of numbers.

      I am beyond shocked that the auditor let them get away with this even after it being highlighted in Kings letter. Like, why even bother with the pretense of following IFRS if you’re just going to make it up as you go along anyway? Unbelievable!

    2. In essence it means that DCK has been cast adrift… this opinion substantiated by the commitment of ongoing finance by NOAL.

      In simple terms – unless DCK is good to his word “the gig is fcuked”

      £7m+ 🤔💩☠️

  18. First of, I openly confess to not knowing all the facts around Tommy Burns tenure at his beloved GLASGOW CELTIC but, I just wish you had not taken, even the slightest dig at his reputation, for me,and I’m sure many other fans, he was the absolute epitome of decency and humility, your comment is in poor taste and should have been kept to yourself.

    1. All things considered I feel that the statement made by GSACHM was not so much as to denigrate Tommy as it was to defend Fergus. He validates this in further commentary.
      In fairness- points well made. Short memories…Fergus owes Celtic NOTHING

  19. Stunning stuff again this past few days. Baffles me how they are still going in all honesty and why they are being allowed to continue in such a reckless manner. SFA and SPFL showing their usual cowardice and not questioning them at all.

    Donation made, enjoy a beer on me and stay safe.

    JJ: I thanked your wife as per PP account and now I thank you buddy.

  20. The criticism of Fergus McCann is ridiculous, Who do you think was going to ride to the rescue of Celtic? The booing of Fergus at the unfurling of the flag was a total embarrassment and shamed the support, Check out Tom Boyd’s face at that moment when Fergus is speaking to the crowd, We should be eternally grateful for what Fergus did, I dread to think where we would be today, Probably resembling something like the clusterfuck at Ibrox.

  21. £50.00 donation from my dad made today (I have now made it monthly).How long can
    the carnage at rangers lite continue?If lord Bannantyne finds against CCK surely the
    whole house of marked cards will collapse and they will be put out of their misery.A
    bonus to this should be the end of the line for Doncaster and Regan. One lives in hope.

    JJ: I have had a slew of missed payments recently. A recurring £50 is greatly appreciated. Thank you.

  22. I can’t believe the criticism of Fergus on here today.

    Strangely coincidental criticism when the Rangers Lite are such a mess It’s almost as if someone is trying to deflect by coming on disguised as a celtic fan with an overtly Irish name. Who’d have thunk it!

    Pre-Fergus the club was a shambles, limping from one crisis to another.

    Fergus and a certain unsung hero named John O’Neil stepped up when it counted, John paid one million of his own cash to the BoS to prevent them foreclosing.

    Fergus not only delivered a stadium and a world class football academy but also put in an infrastructure and management which are the reasons that the club is so successful today.

    The flag day in 1998 was embarrassing when a significant minority booed, but fortunately they were soon drowned out by the majority.

    Fortunately the wee man made a return to the stadium in 2014 were he was rightfully applauded by all fans who with a little hindsight can now appreciate his efforts and legacy


    God bless the bunnet!


    For those who claim to be Celtic fans but don’t know their history.


  23. So kings fix for this quagmire is to have a share issue that will convert shares to equity for the creditors, while the existing small shareholders share price will be turned to dust if they don’t have the finance to keep their personal share capital percentage in the Club. I don’t know if I understand this correctly but it appears king’s plan is to stiff the small shareholders of RIFC, who should all be biting his hand off at 20p a share.

  24. Have I missed something?
    Dallas Campbell have signed off on the accounts based on a commitment from NOAL to cover the forecast cash flow shortfalls of £7m plus.
    King would have had to show proof of funds as the auditors would/should have been aware of his glib and shameless background.
    Rewind a couple of weeks to the Court Of Session where King’s counsel claimed that his client was skint and could provide Lord Bannatyne of proof of King’s penury!
    Hmm, which version is the truth? Perhaps Dallas Campbell and Lord Bannatyne should compare notes because a very large porkie is in play.
    Very noticeable that no one in the media is asking a question. Is the subject off limits?
    After the ignominy of Luxembourg it’s strange that Europa Cup group stage qualification 3 years out of 5 is a cornerstone of future financial forecasts!
    The exit cost from Sports Direct was never mentioned when the media hailed King’s victory over Ashley.
    The future of the club is totally reliant on the promises of a glib and shameless liar, best of luck with that one.
    Alarm bells should be ringing all over the place and any manager worth his salt will steer well clear.
    With an inflated wage bill, including The Hats left overs and Pedro’s duds, the prognosis for the current financial year is desperate and likely to be worse than the recently published figures.

  25. Monthly donation plus a bit extra. Better late than never JJ.

    JJ: It did not escape my notice. An English rose in a garden of despair. Very kind of you.

  26. Timing here is everything. If CCK gets past the AGM without the Court ruling on the TP requirement for share offer then the value of shares will plummet in the equity for debt move.

    The CCK plan to convert debt to equity and reach Euro funding can only work if the Court rules against the TP.

    If the Court rules before the AGM and CCK is told to comply then small shareholders should know that they have a route to realise 20p a share if they so choose. Even if that happened after the AGM and CCK was required to make the 20p offer the issues of value would still hold. Would that tempt small shareholders to sell knowing that after this the likely value of shares will be below 10p?

    There might even be a scenario whereby you could sell to Dave at 20p then weeks later buy back at pennies to hold the same shares but have a large profit in your pocket?

    Then there is the accountancy issue of going concern. If CCK faces implementation of cold shouldering then his £7m loan ‘guarantee’ is less than worthless suggesting that Campbell Dallas’s view of going concern should come into play.

    Not sure I can see how all of this could be dragged out to a point where Sevco reach a Europa League group stage place in summer 2018? The Euro cash doesn’t get paid out until much later and probably into 2019?

    1. Given the financial results, with worse to come, King would get knocked over in the rush to exit at 20p per share.
      Really can’t understand how King can tell his story of penury to the Court Of Session then tell a completely different story to the auditors.
      The latter must be confident of their position otherwise in the event of another admin their necks would be on the line if creditors get stiffed again.
      So its lose, lose for King. The family trust has the money and it’s accessible so over to you Lord Bannatyne.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s