Auditors raise new 'going concern' questions over Rangers' engine room company

[buster. 4,885]

In the hypothetical but currently plausible scenario that the requisitioners look like pushing the incumbents out of the boardroom if a GM is held, then what options are left for the present directors to prevent this from happening ?

 

1. Don't have / delay a GM.

They have in recent times been putting questionable layers on the premise that the safety of incumbents is threatened and this is one avenue where they could seek a delay.

 

2. With or without the delay, spend the first tranche of the 5M credit facility but after further 'due diligence' Ashley decides against facilitating the second tranche of 5M and forces an insolvency event. Therefore incumbents leave office but (friendly) administrators are appointed.

3. Try and do a deal with other shareholders.

 

 

Any Others ?

[Bluedell 5,382]

2. With or without the delay, spend the first tranche of the 5M credit facility but after further 'due diligence' Ashley decides against facilitating the second tranche of 5M and forces an insolvency event. Therefore incumbents leave office but (friendly) administrators are appointed.

 

If they do this then I'd expect legal action to be taken against them.

[Little General 80]

But why has it been rehashed now....whose purposes does it serve?

 

Today, the interim interdict that the RST got in court to stop Cashley getting his mitts on Ibrox, expires. Expect more of the same articles to make it look like we need more money, this time secured against Ibrox. Once achieved, there will be no need for the EGM, they will walk imo,

[buster. 4,885]

If they do this then I'd expect legal action to be taken against them.

 

Yes, but how long would such legal action take, how much would it cost and what would be the prospect of success ?

 

Re. Second tranche of the 5M

 

The second tranche of GBP5 million, which repayable 5 years after drawdown, will be used, if required, for working capital purposes and is subject to due diligence by SD prior to drawn down.

 

http://rangers.g3dhosting.com/regulatory_news_article/453

[pete 2,499]

If they do this then I'd expect legal action to be taken against them.

 

Agree they can't do that now that 5 mill is on offer + other offers of finance. Even they wouldn't push the boat on that one.

[BrahimHemdani 1]

Am I missing something here? Is this not old news? The accounts were released in November.

 

Aren't these The Rangers Football Club Ltd (TRFCL) Accounts as distinct from The Rangers International Football Club plc, the holding company of The Rangers Football Club.

[Bluedell 5,382]

Aren't these The Rangers Football Club Ltd (TRFCL) Accounts as distinct from The Rangers International Football Club plc, the holding company of The Rangers Football Club.

 

Yes, you are correct. However given that all the messages are exactly the same as they are for RIFC's consolidated accounts, it does make the article a bit of a waste of time.

[Bluedell 5,382]

Yes, but how long would such legal action take, how much would it cost and what would be the prospect of success ?

 

I would hope that the was a reasonable amount of success and as it would be against the directors personally it may act as a deterrent.

 

However if they have their losses underwritten by some guy that they don't speak to then perhaps it's less relevant.

[buster. 4,885]

I would hope that the was a reasonable amount of success and as it would be against the directors personally it may act as a deterrent.

 

However if they have their losses underwritten by some guy that they don't speak to then perhaps it's less relevant.

 

One of the problems is the Ashley financial muscle (including 'expensive' advice) allied to what would seem as a stubborn streak that isn't adverse to corporate street-fighting.

 

I don't think anyone expects a smooth passage,........ tbh I'd expect them to have a list of options that they'll have to block requisitioner success.

 

The panorama has changed since the 2013 McColl and Murray(s) led requisition.

Today, it has a more solid base, a more solid strategy and a much more unified fanbase.

 

On the other side of the fence we now have the more overt and dangerous presence of Mr MASH.

 

 

Just a thought but one of the reasons I consider the insolvency event an option for Ashley is that wrt the fanbase they have burnt a lot of bridges and might think a new friendly third party would have a better chance of getting us onside.

 

Reallity will almost certainly be something completely different

[craig 5,199]

Grab a headline, perhaps.

 

BTW, dunno how it is with others, but they continually write about "going concern" and the like. What are the actually "rankings" here. Just to see what this actually means and where the company stands. You would expect that the next evaluation is not exactly up anytime soon, is it?

 

Going concern should be monitored on an ongoing basis internally. If you only have periodic going concern evaluations you run the risk of not getting to the next evaluation period.

 

Generally speaking audit firms try their damnedest to NOT issue a going concern qualification as they know the negative impact that a Company gets from such an opinion. So if your auditors DO have a going concern issue you can be pretty sure that the entity is in real danger of going bust - but we already knew that about Rangers anyway.

 

I would be more concerned that the Board make the assumption that the club will have the resources to "continue indefinitely" - that very clearly isn't the case.