"Haha finally now you admit you were wrong and it's not a...

"Haha finally now you admit you were wrong and it's not a debt.."

Can you show where I said it was a debt?

I said it was a liability.
And I still say so.
Not just me, but the company's directors and its auditors also say so.

And at the moment it is held off-balance sheet, but guess how it is to be presented under new accounting standards to be adopted this financial year?
(PS. As a clue to help you answer that question, some companies with prudent financial managers report "lease-adjusted gearing".)


"sorry you were exposed calling note 18 in the financials debt..hmm just liabilities(rental) in the course of running a business...."

Again, can you point out where I called it "debt"?

As for "rental in the course of running a business", well, not exactly... because unlike other operating expenses - such as wages, electricity, marketing, transport - which can be reduced at the election of the company's management (for example, if stores become unprofitable), lease liabilities relating to store closures still need to be serviced in one way or another.


"btw Christmas is upon us and boom sales coming.."

During the December half of last financial year, the company made NPAT of $17.7m, and the year before that Dec half NPAT was $17.5m.

This year they are looking at NPAT of $10m-$11m... equivalent to between 38% and 44% reduction.

Which makes "boom sales" a curious interpretation of the situation, on any objective measure.


Now, back to the question about what TRS's balance sheet will look like when those accounting changes are brought to bear on the company's lease liabilities: what do you reckon the resulting "lease-adjusted gearing" will be?