Annual Accounts

[crucible 0]

Do you have any understanding as to what an audit actually is?

 

Do you actually have a point of any value other than trying to discredit the auditors as somehow signing of something other than a clean audit, you should contact them and point out their area of incompetence otherwise let it be.

[trueblue 64 57]

After hearing the opinions of several financial experts over the course of the day I am comfortable with the results. The share price has remained constant which suggests the markets are comfortable with the results as well.

It is time for both sides to stop the mudslinging, the shareholders will decide the makeup of

the board on the 24th.

[bossy 0]

Do you actually have a point of any value other than trying to discredit the auditors as somehow signing of something other than a clean audit, you should contact them and point out their area of incompetence otherwise let it be.

 

I always expected a clean audit. All that tells you is that the accounting has been done right and that there is enough cash to get through the next 12 months. What an audit does not tell you is whether the business is being run properly or whether the management or the Board or competent. Go back and look at the accounts and tell us how they plan to plug that £16 million gap in between revenue and costs. Because that is something the auditors do not and cannot tell you.

 

And that is not to discredit the auditors. That is just an understanding of what their job is.

[barca72 440]

The accounts are what they are. As I have said multiple times, the big issue coming out of the accounts is the £16 million gap between revenue and costs. Closing that gap in just one year will be a very tall order. And if they do not manage to do that then new funding will be required.

 

This isn't an accounting issue, it is a business one.

 

Do you believe that this present board and the new NOMAD are competent enough and able enough to fulfill or come close to fulfilling this task?

[craig 5,199]

Ever heard of Arthur Andersen crucible ? Enron ? Worldcom ? Yeah the first one was the largest public accounting firm in the world... guess what happened to it ? It went bankrupt because it had provided a "clean bill of health" to Enron only to find that its audit proceeses werent quite as robust as they should have been (and attempted to cover it up with the infamous shredding exercise).... that's right, the 2nd company on the list - what happened to them ? That's right, they got a clean bill of health from the largest, most reputable firm of accountants in the world at the time... and proceeded to go bankrupt. Worldcom, similar if not identical fate.

 

Point is, you can laud Deloitte all you want - that clean bill of health, 3 months after the Balance sheet date, is very close to worthless - and I say that as an accountant and previous auditor. It is 3 months historical and things could have VASTLY changed since that point in time.

 

Instead of being blase and almost arrogant in your condemnation of others for NOT fawning over the auditors giving an unqualified report, you would still do well to realise that there most certainly IS the possibility that things arent quite as rosy, certainly not just because a firm of accountants sign off on a report regarding an accounting period that closed 3 months ago.

[craig 5,199]

After hearing the opinions of several financial experts over the course of the day I am comfortable with the results. The share price has remained constant which suggests the markets are comfortable with the results as well.

It is time for both sides to stop the mudslinging, the shareholders will decide the makeup of

the board on the 24th.

 

I wouldnt pay TOO MUCH heed to the share price - RFC stock is thinly traded so doesnt necessarily have the volatility that other more commonly traded shares have. Likewise, our shares spike and trough on no news which doesnt happen nearly as often with high-volume traded stocks.

[crucible 0]

Ever heard of Arthur Andersen crucible ? Enron ? Worldcom ? Yeah the first one was the largest public accounting firm in the world... guess what happened to it ? It went bankrupt because it had provided a "clean bill of health" to Enron only to find that its audit proceeses werent quite as robust as they should have been (and attempted to cover it up with the infamous shredding exercise).... that's right, the 2nd company on the list - what happened to them ? That's right, they got a clean bill of health from the largest, most reputable firm of accountants in the world at the time... and proceeded to go bankrupt. Worldcom, similar if not identical fate.

 

Point is, you can laud Deloitte all you want - that clean bill of health, 3 months after the Balance sheet date, is very close to worthless - and I say that as an accountant and previous auditor. It is 3 months historical and things could have VASTLY changed since that point in time.

 

Instead of being blase and almost arrogant in your condemnation of others for NOT fawning over the auditors giving an unqualified report, you would still do well to realise that there most certainly IS the possibility that things arent quite as rosy, certainly not just because a firm of accountants sign off on a report regarding an accounting period that closed 3 months ago.

 

I get the feeling you are inferring something however vague, I don't appreciate your patronising approach, if you don't like Deloitte's report and signing off tough.

[Calgacus 8]

After hearing the opinions of several financial experts over the course of the day I am comfortable with the results. The share price has remained constant which suggests the markets are comfortable with the results as well.

It is time for both sides to stop the mudslinging, the shareholders will decide the makeup of

the board on the 24th.

 

If the Board are so confident of winning a vote, why are they using underhand tactics to try and prevent any one else being nominated? The share price is affected by numerous factors, not just the annual accounts.

[bossy 0]

Do you believe that this present board and the new NOMAD are competent enough and able enough to fulfill or come close to fulfilling this task?

 

Okay ... several different issues here. First, costs. The given that payroll is our biggest cost (£18 million) then how do you get costs down without reducing the number of players, reducing salaries and or layoffs? Certainly there are also operating costs; the cost of running Ibrox and Auchenhowie for example. But those are costs that are less controllable (e.g. cost of electricity).

 

Second, revenue. Very hard to increase gate revenue for this year because half of it has already been sold. So you have to look to hospitality, sponsorship, merchandise, etc. But can you increase that by £16 million?

 

I think they probably can close the gap but not by £16 million. £5 or £6 million maybe.

 

So where does the NOMAD come in? When you need to raise funds in the capital markets. Now we know from what management have said that we only have £2.5 million in borrowing available and no bank borrowing . So what happens if we run out of cash next summer? We go back to the capital markets for, say, £10 million. But the institutions like to work with a blue chip NOMAD like Cenkos. So having the wrong NOMAD will make it harder to raise cash from them. And if we cannot raise cash through a share issue then we will need to look at asset sales. And the only assets we have are players, Ibrox and Auchenhowie.

 

Or maybe management will surprise me.

[craig 5,199]

I get the feeling you are inferring something however vague, I don't appreciate your patronising approach, if you don't like Deloitte's report and signing off tough.

 

Ahhh, the good old retort of "tough" instead of debating it. Fair enough, your call.

 

It wasnt meant to be patronising so apologies if it came across that way - shame you couldnt do the same Re post #101 to bossy, given it was patronising too - a one way street is it ?

 

And by the way, not inferring anything at all, I am merely stating that we shouldnt always simply trust the fact we got an unqualified audit report. I know plenty of folks at Deloitte and know they are a reputable firm. But they cannot tell you that all is rosy in the Rangers garden. If you want to take comfort in that then fine, but dont be condescending to those who see a bigger picture at play !