Rangers Retail Limited Accounts

[ian1964 10,613]

https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/08142409/filing-history

[Bluedell 5,471]

I see the accounts were signed by an Ashley director and not our guys.

 

Rangers are looking for £1m from RRL for breach of the IP licence, and because the auditors have not been able to get enough information from either side, they have qualified the accounts.

[Frankie 8,367]

Would be great to get an informed article on the state of play with RR Ltd in light of this publication.

[pete 2,499]

Would be great to get an informed article on the state of play with RR Ltd in light of this publication.

 

mmm I thought we had someone who said he wouldn't mind doing articles on the accounts. Can't for the life of me remember who it was though.

[Bluedell 5,471]

Would be great to get an informed article on the state of play with RR Ltd in light of this publication.

 

There's not a lot of information contained within them to allow an informed opinion on them, but here are a few comments.

 

Dividends of £2.7m paid but we don't know how much were paid to Rangers, particularly following the comments over the past few days that Ashley has taken too much.

 

Profit before tax has risen from £1.2m to £2.7m but this may be largely due to the accounting treatment of provisions. In the prior year accounts, provisions of £1m were made in respect of "onerous" leases and the contract where it has to purchase stock (from SD) at above net realisable value. It seems that £870K of these provisions have been reversed, rather than used.

 

It seems strange that the auditors were happy for the provisions to be there and for them then to be reversed (if that is indeed the case). However it they weren't then the level of dividends payable would not be at the same level. Is this what the court case is about? Do the Rangers directors feel that the provisions are still required and therefore the dividends should be a lot lower? Have the Rangers directors approved the accounts at the board meeting held 11 days ago?

 

Turnover of the company fell from £4.8m to £4.2m presumably due to the continued fans' boycott, but it's disappointing that it hasn't fallen by more. Shame on you, you know who you are!

 

All fixed assets ("plant & machinery") have been disposed of for some reason.

 

The company has found that it actually ahs £200 of shares issued and not the £100 that they thought that they had. Given that SD seem to take on the company secretarial responsibilities it is yet another cock-up by them. the £100 issued in error are to be cancelled.

[Frankie 8,367]

I don't believe our directors have approved the accounts - see date Barnes signed this document and associated court action from last week.

[craig 5,199]

I see the accounts were signed by an Ashley director and not our guys.

 

Rangers are looking for £1m from RRL for breach of the IP licence, and because the auditors have not been able to get enough information from either side, they have qualified the accounts.

 

They haven't even qualified them BD - they have refused to give an opinion

[craig 5,199]

There's not a lot of information contained within them to allow an informed opinion on them, but here are a few comments.

 

Dividends of £2.7m paid but we don't know how much were paid to Rangers, particularly following the comments over the past few days that Ashley has taken too much.

 

Profit before tax has risen from £1.2m to £2.7m but this may be largely due to the accounting treatment of provisions. In the prior year accounts, provisions of £1m were made in respect of "onerous" leases and the contract where it has to purchase stock (from SD) at above net realisable value. It seems that £870K of these provisions have been reversed, rather than used.

 

It seems strange that the auditors were happy for the provisions to be there and for them then to be reversed (if that is indeed the case). However it they weren't then the level of dividends payable would not be at the same level. Is this what the court case is about? Do the Rangers directors feel that the provisions are still required and therefore the dividends should be a lot lower? Have the Rangers directors approved the accounts at the board meeting held 11 days ago?

 

Turnover of the company fell from £4.8m to £4.2m presumably due to the continued fans' boycott, but it's disappointing that it hasn't fallen by more. Shame on you, you know who you are!

 

All fixed assets ("plant & machinery") have been disposed of for some reason.

 

The company has found that it actually ahs £200 of shares issued and not the £100 that they thought that they had. Given that SD seem to take on the company secretarial responsibilities it is yet another cock-up by them. the £100 issued in error are to be cancelled.

 

I think it is safe to say that the PBT is almost solely down to those reversals of onerous contract provisions. What is most telling to me is the quantum of the dividends given both the revenue and net income prior to dividend numbers - looks like a wholly excessive distribution - though legal given there is still equity in the company.

 

BD, I think that they ARE reversals - one of the notes to the financials states that to be the case - if there was any ambiguity one would expect clarifying language.

 

Agree regarding the sales value, should be a whole lot lower (I was one who put money into that top line for the year to April 26, 2015 - but I wont be putting anything into the top line any further). One thing that can't be told from this is whether the "purchasing of goods at above net realizable value" i.e. RRL has to buy the kits at MSRP whether sold or not is still in place - if it is till in place then there should be even more of a push for a boycott - not because of that deal, but because if we don't buy anything but still have to pay Ashley then RRL will be in liquidation in no time, which would then, you would imagine, reset the contracts as the contract is with RRL, not TRFC.

 

Are you sure that all fixed assets have been disposed of - looked to me like they had simply been written down to a zero NBV - there is still some accumulated cost in the financials. Looks to me like the company still has assets, just that they all are at least 4 yrs old and have now been written down to zero NBV.

 

The shares thing is actually fairly commonplace. However, the fact that these assets were actually issued and the company now has to set about getting them back suggests poor Company Secretarial work in allocating them in the first place - no surprise given the Registered Office is in Shirebrook and you would expect the Company Secretarial function is carried out by SD. Would be interested to know who those shares were issued to !

[Frankie 8,367]

Is section 15 in the Notes related to the share mix-up?

 

15 Control

 

The ultimate controlling party at 26 April2015 was M J WAshley, by virtue of his 100% ownership of Mash Holdings Limited, the ultimate parent· company. Mash Holdings Limited indirectly holds the majority of shares in Sports Direct International pic,' who own 100% of the share capital of Sportsdirect.com Retail Limited (the parent company).

 

The ultimate controlling party at the signing date is The Rangers Football Club Limited, by virtue of their 51% ownership of the company.

 

Edited August 16, 2016 by Frankie

[craig 5,199]

Is section 15 in the Notes related to the share mix-up?

 

Difficult to say. But certainly plausible.

 

Given the shareholdings changed this year the easiest way to get to the agreed upon shareholdings would be to allocate new shares in such proportions as to get to the new shareholding.

 

However, if that is the case I'm not sure how they can now simply cancel the additional 100 shares - they would presumably need to have one party gift to the other party the shares which maintains the agreed upon shareholding.

 

Company Secretarial work isn't my thing though