Prior to discussing the RIFC plc accounts I should point out that I exclusively predicted that Rangers would run out of money this month. Other respected social media journalists such as Phil Macgiollabhain dismissed my assertions. He stated that the money would run out at calendar year-end. This site, unlike Rangers, was on the money yet again! This site has sources that are not open to those who seek the destruction of Rangers. I correspond directly and indirectly with former Chairmen and CEO’s and others with links to the current regime. My sources are impeccable and highly respected in the City. This site is their go-to-site for releasing information to the public domain. If one wishes to discern insights on Rangers predicated on facts, with no agenda or than my antipathy to the current board, this site should be your one stop shop.
Regular readers will know that I don’t engage in tit for tat exchanges with my social media peers. If I had not been taken to task by Phil Mac I would have let his comments slide. I have not come to bury Phil Mac but to praise him. Prior to any discussion on RIFC plc liquidity, his assertion that Rangers are a loss-making business with no credit facilities from the bank, continues to ring true.
The Level 5 turbines have been flat-out to contain the fallout. A £2.9m loan in October does not inspire confidence. The Scotsman, whose journalists are rarely on any level, have accepted Mangetout’s spin with open arms while Keith Jackass, Level 5’s deep throat, is on his knees fellating their spin like Linda Lovelace on coke. If you came down in the last shower in Edinburgh you might believe that Rangers have cut their losses in half. Nice try Traynor but no cigar. On social media there are those who trained in business (in my case as a joint major) who can read financial statements and exhume the corporate body for a thorough autopsy. Don’t be misled by the title of this piece. Those expecting the comforting rustle of Autumn leaves and a New Hampshire patchwork quilt of burnished bronze should direct themselves to the Sevcon 1 squirrels drey at Auchenhowie, or the post-restante offices at Blythswood Square.
When the Pantomime horse of career criminal and barber’s model took over Rangers using £25,000 worth of misappropriated data, they promised investment, a choice of NOMAD and transparency. They have failed to tick the box on all three. Fail-Fail-Fail. The latter of this omnishanbles triumvirate, transparency, has been conspicuous by its absence since the hostile takeover. King’s tame solicitors, James Blair’s Anderson Strathern, issued a notice in The Times apropos an action at The Court of Session in Edinburgh. Are solicitor firms now engaging in squirrels? Was the conveyancing consigliere not aware of the fact that Rangers Retail Ltd is an English company and would not be subject to the dodgy handshakes of the Scottish Judiciary? How remiss of him.
The Rangers board are not suing SDI Retail Services. They are the defendants in an action raised by SDI. On the 15th August The Club was served with a claim by SDI Retail Services Limited which was raised in the Chancery Division of the Royal Courts of Justice. The Club is a Defendant to the Claim which has also been brought against Dave King (who is not a member of The Club’s board), Paul Murray and Rangers Retail Limited. The Claim seeks the Court’s permission for SDI Retail Services Limited to be allowed to bring derivative proceedings on Rangers Retail Limited’s behalf against the other defendants to the claim.
SDI Retail are pursuing a case that would confirm that the agreement between club with Rangers Retail has not in any way been undermined by the unilateral actions of the rogue board. SDI insist that their agreement with TRFCL is iron-clad and that the club is materially reneging on its undertakings. This matter will play out on the 1st and 2nd of December. Where have the board been hiding this information? Under Mark Warburton’s discarded magic hat? SDI are pursuing damages. The board would have us believe that they will be less than seven figures. Less than Joey Barton’s annual salary, who as I correctly predicted will be returning to Auchenhowie to train with the development squad? Should SDI Retail retain the services of the best silk in Sports tort, Adam Lewis, one should not be surprised if the costs escalate as exponentially as those of Rangers payroll.
Is the delicious irony of releasing these horrific results at Halloween, lost on the hapless board, or is this timed as the lesser of two evils with the more incendiary Guy Fawkes coming down the pike? The headline figures are:
REVENUE
Gate receipts and hospitality: £17,349,000
Sponsorship and advertising: £663,000
Broadcasting rights: £2,088,000
Commercial: £233,000
Other revenue: £1,895,000
Total revenue: £22,228,000
OPERATING EXPENDITURE
Staff costs: £12,962,000
Other operating charges: £9,337,000
Hire of plant and machinery: £203, 000
Depreciationt/impairment of property, plant,equipment: £1,584 000
Amortisation of trade marks: £2,000
Amortisation of players’ registrations: £764000
Auditor’s remuneration: £84,000
Total operating expenses: £24,936,000
In summary, excluding exceptional items, RIFC lost £2.7m.
As is always the case with Rangers results, the first few pages from the career criminal chairman are best avoided. The detail in the notes is the best place to start. The key takeaway from the report is the following:
“At the time of preparation, the forecast identified that the group would require up to £4.0m by way of debt or equity funding by the end of season 2016/2017 in order to meet its liabilities as they fall due. Following the progression of the team to the Semi Finals of the Scottish League Cup, the funding requirement is now anticipated to be £3.75m.The first tranche of funding amounting to £2.9m was received from investors in October 2016, with further funds forecast to be required in March 2017. Further funding is likely to be required during the 2017/18 season, the quantum of which is dependent on future football performance and European football participation. The Board of Directors has received undertakings from certain investors that they will provide financial support to the Group and have satisfied themselves as to the validity of these undertakings and that the individuals have the means and authority to provide such funding as and when it is required. The Board acknowledge that had these assurances not been secured then a material uncertainty would exist which may cast doubt over the Groups ability to continue as a going concern and therefore its ability to realize its assets and discharge its liabilities in the normal
course of business. With the appropriate assurances obtained and the continued support of the investors, the Board believe that such uncertainty has been removed.”
I emphasized one word in red typeface, namely authority. To those who have read many sets of financial results, this sticks out like a sore thumb. Allow me to translate the bamboozling bons mots:
Halloween Houston has the authority to provide up to £5m of funding from Club Tropicana 1872:
The cosy relationship between the beleaguered board and Club Tropicana, between Fagin and The Artful Dodger, is somewhat Dickensian:
The following chestnut should also be roasted on an open fire when reviewing the accounts:
“In 2012, the SPL raised proceedings against The Rangers Football Club plc (Oldco) in relation to the use of EBTs and following a hearing in February 2013 a fine of £250,000 and costs of £150,000 were levied against Oldco. As part of the agreement to allow Rangers to participate in Scottish Football, there was a clause inserted where it was agreed that Rangers would become liable and responsible for the imposition of any sanctions by the SPL for any breach of SPL Rules and or articles by Oldco/Rangers FC (i.e. the £250,000 fine). The Club believed that the SPFL had, through documents and actions, waived all and any right it may have had to insist upon payment under the clause, thereby holding the Club harmless in relation to the sanctions. This was disputed by the SPFL. Within the current SPFL rules there is a provision (known as the offset rule) whereby if any amounts are due to the SPFL, the Board of the SPFL are entitled to withhold amounts due to the Club up to the value of the amount outstanding. The Board of the SPFL determined that it would impose the offset rule to recover the £250,000 fine from the Club. As a result of this decision, the Club invoked Article 99 of the SFA Articles seeking a determination by an Arbitral Tribunal appointed by the SFA that the sum was not due to the SPFL. The tribunal was held in October 2015 and found in favour of the SPFL and as such the Club was liable to pay the fine plus associated costs. The Club duly paid the SPFL and the total paid during the year amounted to £286,000 and has been disclosed as a non-recurring cost in the financial statements.”
Reaching for additional funding only four months into fiscal 2016/2017 and total losses of £3.3m does not bode well for RIFC. One would expect the SFA to pave Rangers way to the semi-final stages of The Scottish Cup with the now customary home ties against the might of Peterhead, but will £3.75m be enough to see them through to season’s end? As of the second of December, the going concern Klaxons might well go off at The Royal Courts, which leads to the key question:
Do Club Tropicana 1872 have another £2m burning a hole in Halloween Houston’s pocket?
