Matt

We did both, you can't spend what you haven't got. Of course you can, you can spend what you can reasonably expect to receive in the future if it's done in the right way. Doing on long-term money-earners like improving the stadium is a good idea. Doing on the money pit that is the transfer market is not.

We would have been in the financial shit without Ashley as we had borrowed way above what we could repay and soon after the takeover the expected credit crunch arrived. Not really. We had not borrowed beyond our means. We had certainly agreed contracts with players beyond our means.

To your first point- there is a cash flow statement to that effect. The idea of financial statements is that they tell you different things. The first and most important is the cashflow statement, but you can't judge a business solely on its cash. That can be manipulated as well. As to the second- yes, depreciation models are not perfect and are open to manipulation like other accounting methods- cash included. That's what the auditors are paid to check.

Amortisation is based on the value at the end of an intangible asset's life. In the case of a player's registration, that is worth zero because the player can leave on a free. If you take a physical asset costing £10m which could be scrapped for £2m and had a life of 4 years- then you would count £2m depreciation (more or less same thing, but for tangible assets) per year until it was worth its scrap value at the end of its life. It is simply a way of allocating costs over long periods. If a company spent £100m on new kit that would bring them huge revenues over 10 years- why should they suffer a huge loss in the year they bought it? This method ensures that costs and benefits are fairly allocated. This is also not what a player is worth- its just what is on the books. We're at liberty to sell a player for more or less- it's purely an accounting methodology.

They've gone to great lengths to obscure the pre-tax profit, which I suspect will be pretty healthy- at this stage impossible to tell which elements of purchased players are in the amortisation figure and how much are in player trading.

Usually within 48h of filing. Might appear tomorrow but more likely monday.

It's probably best to wait for the filings to come through at Companies House. At least those accounts will be readable. The press release takes some decoding.

In which case, how have we managed to spend £30m+ in this period on transfers? The £3.9m is a P&L number, the transfer spend is a cash figure. As almost all of the Caroll money will have been profit on disposal (very low book value), but the majority of the incoming transfer spend will be amortised over future years, the P&L impact of player trading will be a much higher profit, probably in the region of £20m. The club will be keen not to underline that to the supporters- as it's not a cash figure and would otherwise give the impression that the club has a larger war chest to spend in the summer.

Aye, he was good on the Peter Serafinowicz show as well.

I think we're in agreement here- enterprise value= market cap + net debt

I'm sure they'd have flipped it pretty quickly if Paragon actually took control of the club. The club had an enterprise value of about £200m when Ashley bought it. Absolutely mental amount.

You'd have had to be mad to pay the price that was indicated by our share price at the time. Had a year passed and the cash position deteriorated further, then you would have seen that share price plunge pretty rapidly, making the club much cheaper to buy. The Shephalls did extremely well out of the deal with Ashley. We'd have been much more attractive at a more realistic price, but at the time we were taken over it was all the rage to buy yourself a football club for top dollar.

What, they just don't bother with a football league anymore? The knock on effects could see more teams struggle, not to that extreme imo but once TV money dries up and attendances start dropping each week it will put serious financial straims on most SPL clubs. Why would attendances at other clubs drop each week? There's nothing to say that lack of Rangers effectively takes football fans out of circulation.

What, they just don't bother with a football league anymore?

I disagree. If anything, the impending requirement for ongoing cash injections (due to contracted wages in the future) would have been the key deterrent, not the level of debt, which was there for all to see. And even then, the club would have been able to find a buyer, albeit at a much lower (and more realistic price) than what Ashley paid for it.

He owns the club and the loans so really it's just cosmetics. Loans are niftier for legal and tax reasons but for practical purposes, loans from a 100% owner is additional equity put into the business. Any interest on the loan should be considered in the same light as shareholder dividends. Well, not exactly since there's only one shareholder. Just in terms of comparisons with other regimes, both here and at other clubs.

He owns the club and the loans so really it's just cosmetics. Loans are niftier for legal and tax reasons but for practical purposes, loans from a 100% owner is additional equity put into the business. Any interest on the loan should be considered in the same light as shareholder dividends.

Equally, that player could get injured in the course of playing for free and leave themselves unable to earn in the future. Clubs take out insurance, so perhaps any claim would be lost in the financial mire.

Jif Horsefield

I can't find the clip, but there's an episode of HIGNFY where he more or less threatens Hislop - which has exactly the effect you would think. Comes across as an absolute cunt and no-one should fall for his latter-day meeja-darling image. He's an absolute shit of a man.

Have a guess lads, come on. In theory this could have happened: Ticketus get a a contract with Rangers FC through their new owner, who sends them the account details for the cash. Only thing is that the account is actually in the name of the parent. Say adios to your £24m, cash is at the parent co and liability is at the operating company in administration. A nifty move and one which has some precedent for Whyte: http://scotslawthoughts.wordpress.com/category/one-stop-roofing-supplies-ltd-v-tixway-uk-ltd/

In reality it's usually a fudge by the FA. In the past 'phoenix clubs' have started three divisions below where they last finished (four if they were also relegated) but that's not been tested with a football league club. An entirely new club would in theory need to apply to the Northern League for admission to Division 2.

That was an argument over VAT on agents fees. We lost the case, appealed but provided for the sum in the accounts. Can't remember what became of any appeal.

As long as they let clubs hide behind limited liability and shift the 'club' to a new company, this sort of thing will always go on. Clubs should be licenced, and licencees should be ring-fenced and policed. Creative finanancing will always happen, but at the very least the club itself should be firewalled from it.

Well, I'm guessing player trading for the year will be massively positive, so what I was getting at was the final financials would certainly put a very different spin on the financial performance of the club that had been previously alluded to by our illustrious MD. Apologies if the choice of words was hyerbole. Amortisation will be exactly the same whether the club pays up front or not, how we pay will only impact the cash flow statement. It should also be fairly standard- all fees are capitalised then accounted for in equal chunks over the lift of the contract, down to zero (if you extend the contract you spread out what was left over the new term). It is cash flow that will drive any reduction in the intercompany loan. It's a tricky one to predict, theory would say there's no point leaving cash sitting idle, but equally I don't suspect Ashley is particularly short right now.