Retail Deal - UOF statement

[jhunter 0]

Where in the accounts does the £590K figure appear? I've had a quick scan but don't see it but may have missed it.

 

The statement states that qualified accountants have analysed the figures, but its not good enough for some?

[Ser Barristan Selmy 222]

Ashley has tapped into the ned/chav market via his sports direct venture.

 

Millions of people in the UK dressed head to toe in 'sportswear' yet just hanging around council estates not doing a single piece of 'sport'.

 

His shops are horrible, but he knows there is a huge market out there for this kind of stuff and the masses are happy to lap up his cheap Lonsdale and Slazenger gear, amongst other 'brands'

The brands he buys are the very worst in cheap and nasty gear.

[Frankie 8,562]

The statement states that qualified accountants have analysed the figures, but its not good enough for some?

 

BD is also a qualified CA so it's worth considering his opinion on such matters.

 

The retail deal appears complicated so it's not a surprise there are different interpretations of it.

[Bluedell 5,627]

The statement states that qualified accountants have analysed the figures, but its not good enough for some?

 

I think it's wrong to blindly accept figures on either side and we should know and understand them to make sure people can make informed judgements. Some thought the JJB was dreadful, some thought it was wonderful, for example.

 

As I said, I don't instantly see where the figure comes from and it would be good for everyone to understand it better.

 

I've known plenty of qualified CAs who didn't understand the club's accounts that well and don't see the issue in questioning the conclusions.

[Bluedell 5,627]

On the accounts, one phrase that sprung to mind when reading the Chairman's report was "polishing a turd"

[aweebluesoandso 290]

In a word "DISGRACEFUL"

[jhunter 0]

I think it's wrong to blindly accept figures on either side and we should know and understand them to make sure people can make informed judgements. Some thought the JJB was dreadful, some thought it was wonderful, for example.

 

As I said, I don't instantly see where the figure comes from and it would be good for everyone to understand it better.

 

I've known plenty of qualified CAs who didn't understand the club's accounts that well and don't see the issue in questioning the conclusions.

 

You state in your post that you have skimmed through the accounts.

 

I am assuming the the accountants that the UoF haven't just skimmed through to put out an inaccurate propaganda piece based on deception something that we absolutely DO see from this and other Rangers Boards.

[Frankie 8,562]

 

As I said, I don't instantly see where the figure comes from and it would be good for everyone to understand it better.

 

I've known plenty of qualified CAs who didn't understand the club's accounts that well and don't see the issue in questioning the conclusions.

 

Looking at Note 15 (page 44) is the following paragraph:

 

Included within cash and bank balances is £3,069,000 (2013 – £946,000) relating to Rangers Retail Limited, which is not immediately available as working capital to the Group as a whole. The Group’s share of this balance will be drawn down as a dividend once approved by the Board of Rangers Retail Limited.

 

I think the confusion then arises from how much of that is due to us after what costs (surplus stock and 'onerous' lease contracts - Note 17/page 45) are accounted for. Obviously we are supposed to get 51% by way of a dividend but it seems one has never been approved by RR. But 51% of what figure isn't clear to this layman...

[quattro 0]

Hour scalling up for 2 years not one.

 

The figure of £2.7 million allegedly being unavailable has been common knowledge for some considerable time and needs no scaling up for two years, however the figures scaled up have been arrived at makes them no less of a nonsense.

 

The fans groups who hold shares will be aware that they can have their legal representatives request sight of Ashley's contracts with the club, why don't they do that rather than indulge in pointless and absurd speculation.

[Bluedell 5,627]

Looking at Note 15 (page 44) is the following paragraph:

 

Included within cash and bank balances is £3,069,000 (2013 – £946,000) relating to Rangers Retail Limited, which is not immediately available as working capital to the Group as a whole. The Group’s share of this balance will be drawn down as a dividend once approved by the Board of Rangers Retail Limited.

 

I think the confusion then arises from how much of that is due to us after what costs (surplus stock and 'onerous' lease contracts - Note 17/page 45) are accounted for. Obviously we are supposed to get 51% by way of a dividend but it seems one has never been approved by RR. But 51% of what figure isn't clear to this layman...

 

The figure of £590K is arrived at by taking the non-controlling interest figure of £567K in the face of the P&L account and prorating it.

 

Based on that method, Rangers Retail Ltd has made £1.65m profit to date. One has to ask why Rangers Retail has cash balances of £3m. Where has this cash come from? Surely a retail business doesn't have large stocks of cash, particularly in early years of trading?

 

It could be that the club has lent cash to Rangers Retail, but that would have been repayable as it's not part of the profits, one would think, although with this mob in charge, who knows?

 

It could be that our share of the profits is only £590K but we can't tell for sure unless we see the detailed agreement, which would never be released to us on commercial grounds.