Enough is enough

Avatar By

“Failure to secure additional funding would result in the existence …

Comment on Enough is enough by armchairsupporter.

“Failure to secure additional funding would result in the existence of a material uncertainty which may cast significant doubt as to the group’s ability to continue as a going concern …”
Surely, while this level of uncertainty might be comfortable for the company’s own directors surely SFA and SPFL require a rather more certainty since the risk is not only to the company but to every other team in the league and cup competitions.

(I know, I’m like buses – totally unreliable and then two posts come at once!)

armchairsupporter Also Commented

Enough is enough
Sorry, I missed the statement from the annual report which hopefully makes sense of my last post.

RIFC Annual Report
“At the time of preparation, the forecasts identied that the Group would require a minimum of £4.0m additional funding by the end of season 2017/18 in order to meet its liabilities as they fall due. The rst tranche of funding is required in November 2017. Further funding amounting to £3.2m is forecast to be required during the 2018/19 season. However, the nal amount is dependent on future football performance and European football participation amongst other factors. The Board have discussed the Club’s forecast cash shortfall and have reached an agreement with New Oasis Asset Limited whereby they will provide additional loan facilities as necessary to meet the above requirements. Further to this, New Oasis Asset Limited and certain investors have agreed to extend their existing loan facilities to July 2019. The Board is satis ed that those parties will continue to provide nancial support to the Group and have satis ed themselves as to the validity of the undertakings.
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 realise 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’m not sure anyone else in the world believes that “uncertainty has been removed”.

Enough is enough
Hoist by their own petard!
UEFA Club Licensing and Financial Fair Play Regulations 2015
“ANNEX IX: Licensor’s assessment procedures
E: Assessment of the future financial information
3. The licensor must assess the liquidity of the licence applicant (i.e. the availability of cash after taking account of financial commitments) and its ability to continue as a going concern until at least the end of the licence season. The licence must be refused if, based on the financial information that the licensor has assessed, in the licensor’s judgement, the licence applicant may not be able to meet its financial commitments as they fall due and continue as a going concern until at least the end of the licence season.”
Surely by their own admission above RIFC “… may not be able to … continue as a going concern …” How can they be granted a licence to play in Europe? If they cannot, then by one of their own assumptions they will not be able to meet going concern status.
Check mate?
Although I could not find it in the FFP regulations, I remember someone posted a section which stated that clubs were not allowed to count on possible future revenue from participation in UEFA competition to satisfy the requirements of FFP. (I will look again for this.)

Enough is enough
Forensic, as ever, JC. I cannot believe though that King is not somehow taking money out of this basket case of a company. Otherwise, I think he would have been long gone. He doesn’t seem like the sort of gambler that would throw good money after bad, even for that elusive £20m. Unless of course, it was somebody else’s money he was throwing.

Recent Comments by armchairsupporter

It Is Better To Offer No Excuse Than A Bad One
Best wishes one and all.
JOHN CLARKDECEMBER 29, 2017 at 06:04
Brilliant! It just goes to show – even nostalgia is not what it was!

Who Is Conning Whom?
I made the mistake of connecting on the last penalty incident – calling it against my own team. This picked up some TDs. At the risk of incurring some more, I have to agree with EJ that this one also should not have been a penalty. (I know what have I done – I’m bracing myself for the onslaught!)

EJ’s description of the car cutting in is also a good one. I remember seeing Larson pick up a similar penalty with the ball going out of the box on the RHS of the goal. Only with Larson’s move, he did successfully gain position between player and ball and hold this position and possession momentarily before being bundled over. With Forrest, it all happened too fast, watching it on real time, I think he is ‘responsible’ for the contact and didn’t really take up a position between man and ball. Said that, I don’t think it was a deliberate dive to gain advantage. It’s what, in basketball, would be called a ‘no call’. It happened, no ones fault, play on. 
(I know – this is football)

Who Is Conning Whom?
Jimbo, you seem to be in an incredibly forgiving and trusting mood this evening. Why can they not just be honest and say there’s ney money! If it’s gone quiet, things might be closer to imploding than we thought.

Who Is Conning Whom?

Link shows Celtic achieving what we could justifiably expect – domestic dominance (unbeaten run and four trophies in a row is still unprecedented and at the very top end of what could be expected).
i thought the differential between Celtic and the Rangers would have been much greater. So, I would say TRFC are  punching well bellow their weight. (I’m no Sherlock!)
The opposite is true of Aberdeen, who are doing considerably better than their budget would suggest. Mind you, this is relative to TRFC and, if you take them out of the equation, Aberdeen are fulfilling expectations.
It’s all a bit sad really, money dictates success – except for TRFC, of course.

Who Is Conning Whom?
EASYJAMBONOVEMBER 27, 2017 at 16:46
EJ, I agree with most of what you say – except I don’t think the penalty should have been given. I don’t think there would have been any protest, if it had not! Having given the penalty though, the ref backed himself into a corner and had to give the red card.
Anyway, I really enjoyed your comment and loved the fact that, viewing on my phone, I did not see the Star Trek image until the last moment. This added to the excellent comic timing.

About the author