Rangers Finances


Use our rumours form to send us rangers transfer rumours.

(single word yields best result)

Correct Score Competition Entry

26 Mar 2017 14:10:43
Just watched the interview with Dave King on Rangers TV. DK definitely deserves huge thanks from all fellow Bears for taking our club back o correct path. If any of us was offered a job- huge mounts of stress, no thanks, nothing but grief and constantly harassed by a silver back gorilla and not get paid- who would take that on?

Getting the club back to sound financial footing is excellent leadership and governance =Pedro will have funds to invest- Europe and a a right good crack at them next year - let's get behind King, the Board and our club!

Agree16 Disagree18

26 Mar 2017 21:48:02
You got to love the naivete. Hook line and sinker.

28 Mar 2017 14:45:13
3 Directors resigned and now non-executive. No alarm bells ringing with anyone? It stinks to me of removing themselves from direct liability and responsibility.

28 Mar 2017 15:26:14
Que the doom and gloomers. You people should really get out more. A total non story but the nae Sayers would have you believe Armageddon is iminant

28 Mar 2017 16:34:58
After the tab ruling? Murray n guilligan both involved with king? Is park jr distancing himself? How many boards do u need? A holding company? An operational 1 ( trifc) n a club? Never in football 😂😂😂😂

24 Mar 2017 13:32:47
The semantics of whether it was a small profit or loss pending which interpretation you take is neither here nor there, similarly I don't think there is much to be read into the accounts not being audited, that will come out in the yearly figures either way. What might be of more significance is the following.

Last season Rangers had 3 LC games, 2 home one away, this year 7, 4 (h) 2 (a) and a sell out semi at Hampden, more cash all round therefore.

Secondly Rangers, by all accounts, have the highest ST price on average in the SPL.

Bear in mind the LC money and the majority of club revenue comes in the first half of the year, Celtic stressed that very thing recently when announcing their £16.1m 6 month profit. Rangers overheads were up £4m for that first 6 months, that will be there, up to a point in the next 6 months too.

Barton will reduce it but it is very unlikely Rangers won't make at least a £2m loss this 6 months, SC run has made cash you got to the final last year and still made a loss in the second half of the year.

A net loss adds further to the FFP figures UEFA will look at. Now it's not all doom and gloom it isn't the £7m you were averaging a few years back but it is still going to be a loss and the first 6 months always flatter to deceive.

What does strike me is the club is still very cup run dependant for any likelihood of a profit and that isn't good long term, getting Ashley sorted will bring in approx. £4.2m but you need to get the losses down for UEFA.

Agree5 Disagree1

25 Mar 2017 13:48:35

Do you post on any other Rangers page or are you just obsessed with our finances like most of Scottish football?

25 Mar 2017 19:11:14
g4rry, it's every club's duty to keep an eye on the club's finances, how many failed to get monies due when liquidated?

25 Mar 2017 22:04:50
Did we die or not, Bhampot? If we died then surely the old co's debt died with it.

If we are a new club, like your support will tell anyone daft enough to listen, what has monies owed by another club for to do with us?

Another example of your lot wanting to have your cake and eat it.

26 Mar 2017 14:02:12
As far as i'm concerned, Rangers fc did indeed go down the tubes, and since the new club claim to be the same then all need to keep an eye on their very dodgy board with dealings.

26 Mar 2017 19:26:12
As far as I can remember am sure one of the reasons we where given our football licence was all football debt was to be paid back in full.

27 Mar 2017 12:07:59
Gazo, Rangers and Celtic are both cup run dependent. Celtic probably more so given high salaries including the manager. Your boys did well for Scotland last night, you should be pleased.

24 Mar 2017 13:23:21
Dave King interview in Scottish Daily Mail - Loving what he is saying. Inching towards a new deal with sports direct? I live DK.

Agree3 Disagree9

25 Mar 2017 13:12:54
Thebluevoice, I think many folk would agree David Murray is the architect of where Rangers are today. I think even more would assert that the wrecking ball let loose on Rangers was Craig Whyte.

Other building analogies might include Charles Green and any number of cohorts stripping the copper wire from the place. You can paint Mike Ashley as some belated slum landlord if you so wish too.

All that said, to date, not one person is in jail for this, all dubious to dodgy in their own way, all harmed Rangers in their own way but not one of has been found guilty of a thing.

Then we come to the current chairman, your sixth rogue leader in a row arguably. After all that has happened to find you gushing over the only "official" crook is nothing short of remarkable.

The South African courts called him "a glib and shameless liar" and only the depth of his pockets kept him out of jail for a very long time, make no mistake there. More recently TAB got wise to his dodgy efforts in the Rangers takeover and SARS fined him only last week.

In all seriousness thebluevoice, after all Rangers have went through, why the lovefest for this guy, have you learned nothing?

25 Mar 2017 20:36:39
Who's your favourite player Gazo?

24 Mar 2017 11:52:13
How is a loss reported as a profit?

Agree4 Disagree0

24 Mar 2017 13:31:59
It's a profit on normal operations - before one off and exceptional costs. Quite easy to figure out.

25 Mar 2017 16:47:52
Do you want a profit or a loss?

23 Mar 2017 20:33:56
I see the same old negative comments despite a decent turnaround in finances.

Nothing positive at all for some because no-one has pumped in crazy money.

DK and the board are delivering on the plan that they set out. careful, prudent management of finances whilst improving the footballing side on a deliberate and sustainable manner.

Small steps in the right direction are what will deliver Long term stability.

Well done on many fronts.

Agree8 Disagree12

23 Mar 2017 15:51:04
Rangers post profit for first time in years. Are we turning another corner. Thoughts fellow bears?

Agree2 Disagree15

23 Mar 2017 19:58:14
Another lie. They made a loss of 238k. It's in the accounts for anyone to read rather than believing what the media are told to tell you

24 Mar 2017 08:19:53
Even if it is a loss of 238k it's still a lot better than a loss of 7 million when the current board took over some people are never happy are you really rangers fans? .

25 Mar 2017 22:05:44
Not really, they have included a loan of 2.9M as income so in reality over the six month period the losses have been over 3M, bearing in mind this half of the accounts is always better than the next 6 month period the likelihood is the losses will be quite significant over the 12 month period, another feel good story before season tickets go on sale. This is certainly not the transparency that the fans were promised, the guys a crook. He's just claimed he might appeal the takeover panel decision. He just lost the appeal there isn't any appeal open to him. Why anybody chooses to believe a word he says baffles me but most of you do without any logical argument why, gullible doesn't even cover it.

26 Mar 2017 10:01:28
Spark, that's absolutely not how finances work. Any loan we receive goes to the balance sheet and has zero impact on the p&l. I get u feel compelled to input but you're another one I've caught spouting nonsense. Seriously though, if u don't actually understand finance then don't post made up trash that other bears may mistake for truths.

As for the TAB it is a complete non story! King isn't appealing over the requirement to make a takeover bid, it's over the TAB's interpretation of the current ownership and king is weighing whether it's worthwhile to let them think he is the owner, or if he should correct them through appeal to clarify he's part of a consortium. This has potential to cause issues further down the line if he is seen to be the sole owner hence his consideration to appeal. If he doesn't appeal, he'll make the takeover bid to the rest of the shareholder for 20p per share, which will be rejected by all of them! So really nothing will change at all. Hopefully that clears that up for u.

26 Mar 2017 11:17:29
Papa bear, u are correct in that the loan will be on the balance sheet . However these are unaudited accounts and the balance sheet which would show that theses figures are correct is surprisingly missing? If king truly wanted transparency? The important sheet " balance " would have been published . Even Murray published that sheet . King has never since he took you's off the stock exchange . All you have is his word . And the way he has spoke the past few months? He only opens his mouth to change what foot is in it .

27 Mar 2017 11:09:43
Delbhoy, you answered your own question. Under the UK listing authority (the UKLA) there is no requirement to file interims at all if a company is not listed on the stock market. The fact Rangers publish even the P&L is already above and beyond their statutory requirement.

As for your transparency point. I think its pretty transparent with the P&L being published how rangers are performing. For the loan the board have been pretty clear on the details of it plus it was all over the media at the time so I'm not sure what more you want/ need to know? in other words we already know everything we need to know about the loan but if you really really want to know, I'll help paint a wee picture for you. It will be on the balance sheet under non-current liabilities as a loan, the other side (the cash received) will be sitting in our cash accounts (or used up by now to cover day to day operations) . It is a zero interest loan so therefore no interest will accrue through the p&l and medium/ long term Dave King has already stated that the loan will be converted to equity at some stage once we are listed again and additional shares are provided to the shareholders who provided the loans.

27 Mar 2017 19:18:42
Papa bear u may have misunderstood? I agreed the loan will be on the balance sheet . For these sets of figures though? The only way to show they are genuine is the balance sheet to bank it up!
Now . no nomad is willing to work with your club, hence the fact 2 years after the take over there is no listing . Yous are struggling to get any one to sign off any audited accounts as delloite refused . So just when is the shares being converted? The other loans are due to be paid back november/ December.

As you correctly point out, there was no need to publish these accounts! Who the media reported a 300k profit? When all financial people have pointed out a 283k loss? More spin mate

Why were they published?
1 to make supporters think the impending 20p share is not good value?

What if Ashley n eastdales sell?
Then the shareholding rises and a full takeover is required!

2 is it to try n show the spfl or even uefa you may in future be suitable for a euro licence?

3 ohhhhhhh season ticket money is due and all is rosy?

As for his comments on the retail deal? The fact it's still in high court preceding? There is no proof Ashley is considering negotiating.

28 Mar 2017 09:31:43
Delbhoy, you do realise Celtics interims were unaudited don't you? The celtic accounts were reviewed but not audited per the "scope of review" section that states "A review is substantially less in scope than an audit conducted in accordance with International Standards on Auditing (UK and Ireland) and consequently does not enable us to obtain assurance that we would become aware of all significant matters that might be identified in an audit. Accordingly, we do not express an audit opinion"

the board tried to get shareholder agreement last year to issue more shares, but it was refused by shareholders. this year they agreed although turned down the opportunity for the shares to be distributed to certain shareholders i. e. have to be fairly offered to all shareholders. I can't provide a timetable however the request to provide shares was for this financial year post AGM.

The profit figure is not spin either. The statement was quite clear that Rangers made an operating profit.

they were probably published to maintain consistency within the finance department for the day we do become publicly listed again and have the legal requirement to publish them again in the future. Not sure I follow your point on the share price. The takeover bid that King may be forced to make will be rejected regardless by every shareholder i. e. club 1872 will hardly sell their shares, Mike Ashley will not offload, and neither will the multiple other shareholders. he is only arguing about the interpretation that he is the sole owner of the club when he's not! He's been elected to the board by the shareholders and the owners of the club are the shareholders, not just him. that's all it is plain and simple.

Even if the easdales sell to King, it still wouldn't breach the percentage required for full ownership. Sandy has about 6.5% of the shares while Dave King has 14.57%. you need 51% before you are the "owner" i. e. can outvote everyone and make all the decisions.

the decisions made by UEFA are on annual accounts, not interims. you sound intelligent and then ruin it by not actually thinking these things through. UEFA will base the decisions on the annual audited accounts which will be audited under statutory requirements much like the last ones were. The interims have zero impact on this decision process so there is no need to lie about the figures.

Lastly, if you think rangers fans after all this time won't buy season tickets regardless then you are delusional my friend. We will follow follow our team everywhere and anywhere. new manager, new season. Season tickets will sell themselves irrespective of the clubs financial performance.

you're right on the SD deal and there being no proof. either there is no deal, and nothing changes, or there is a deal and we get some money out of it. hardly a sticker of a point though is it? you are clutching at straws.

28 Mar 2017 13:18:29
Papa bear I am not great on accounts facts or figures . Yes an operating profit was posted but was offset with a rise in costs so not a 300k profit but actually a 283k loss.

My point regarding the share is hypothetical . If the eastdales and Ashley decide to sell? if any disgruntled other share holders sell then it could bring king close to the 51% you speak of .

A questioned the timing of the release of accounts? Are audited accounts not meant to in by 31st March for eufa consideration for next seasons euro comps? I mearly pointed out that without the balance sheet to show the actual debts? Then these numbers mean nothing other than a feel good factor for fans and to paint a rosy picture .

As for eufa ffp? Am not 100%? But it's losses over the past 3 seasons they Base their licences on? Not just this season . I may be wrong .

As for kings argument he is not the sole owner? That is bullshit to . He is not being investigated nor was the ruling based on that. He was found guilty of lying ( oh dear? Again ) withholding vital information to acting in cohort with Letham in share manipulation regarding the take over! Is it just a coincidence that Paul Murray and John Gilligans ( who acted with king in the take over ) places as directors have been terminated? Was king really here to meet Pedro as the mssm made is believe or was it for the rest of the directors to distance themselves from the tab ruling?

28 Mar 2017 16:41:08
And Papa bear? Thank you for the intellectual debate . It's good to have a convo where both can put forward their interpretation without resorting to slanging .

You seem very intellectual. I await your response mate

28 Mar 2017 16:43:15
Delbhoy, I'm not disputing that in any way. It clearly states there is a loss for the year but there is also an operating profit which is huge for us. that's great progress that our activities from footballing operations can actually churn out a small profit in what is our first season back in the top flight. This doesn't even include spl position prize money nor any money from being in Europe (more on that in a moment) .

Oh it certainly could, but do you honestly believe Mike Ashley will sell king his shareholding? especially at a marked down price of 20p? Its highly doubtful so imo I 99% believe there is no issue here and you are dealing in the 1% chance category.

Audited accounts are due 90 days after the end of a company's reporting period and Rangers reporting period is up to June month end. UEFA (notice how its UEFA and not EUFA btw as what you have), will take the latest 3 sets of financials. they can also request additional information if a clubs participation is in doubt so Rangers could provide an adhoc balance sheet to help with their ruling if required.

as for the losses over the 3 years part of your comments, there is a limit of €15million losses over the 3 year period. Rangers are under this threshold so there is no risk/ issue here. even if the €15million limit wasn't there, UEFA take multiple things under consideration such as progress being made on financials i. e. is there a clear trend of improvement (pretty sure there is! ) . additionally I'm sure Chelsea participated in Europe despite them posting more than £50m of losses over the last 3 seasons and this was allowed because UEFA believed that Chelsea were financially secure despite the losses figure.

Dave King is not the owner of rangers. the shareholders own rangers. the shareholders elected to remove Llambias as director and appoint King in his place. He runs rangers, but he doesn't own it and the shareholders at every AGM have the option to vote him off the board. so it is not BS as you state, it is fact.

not sure where you get share manipulation from? it was the TAB that stated 20p per share not King as that was the price of the shares at the time King bought his initially.

What are you on about with Paul Murray and John Gilligan? As far as I'm aware they are still Directors? Please confirm otherwise if I have this wrong though.

28 Mar 2017 21:43:13
To your first point Papa bear . Without the balance sheet? We cannot determine if tv money? Or season ticket money for the full season has been added here? As there is is a huge dip in revenue the 2nd 6 months of the season.

As for Ashley and the eastdales? They could try and hurt king in the pocket out of spite n regain any monies they can? Ashley's money maker is the retail not his shares . Which am sure he bought at 20p or less than what king needs to offer? His gripe isn't with the club, it's personal with king and he could just be looking to hurt him in his pocket n rely on retail money for 6 years?

As for audited accounts foe eufa ( please pardon my spelling ) June is a bit late to grant a licence don't u think? Let's not be niave ( or pretend to be) Their guide line is a 5 million euro loss over the % of 3 years! Yous are no where near within that limit!

Chelsea, man utd, man city continue to flaunt this ffp but have single players to sell to service this debt and the fines are water off a ducks back to these clubs! Do you honestly think the same of yours?

No king isn't your owner . Only a shareholder like many others . Lethams emails gave the tab ruling all the evidence needed to prove king acted fraudulently in share manipulation . Mike Ashley took the the sfa to court and it was proven that king failed the fit n proper test ( only man in history ) that is why Paul Murray signed off legal documents and not king ( largest shareholder ) and could not sit on the main board as chairman . All in court action all available info due to the freedom of information act .

The tab ruling said king must offer his highest share price at the time of buying? 20p!

Paul Murray, John Gilligan and Mr park junior have all been releived of their directors role in trifc? Public knowledge? A day or two after king left? This stinks of the three bears black balling king! Removing his men in power n saving park jnr from being associated with the former

23 Mar 2017 13:34:00
I see Rangers have released their latest financial results which at first reading seem good. However could someone with a bit more knowledge clarify something for me. The bottom line says we're £300k in profit with increased revenue this season. But I remember last season we were taking soft loans off of every director we've got practically amounting to millions just to get to the end of the season. Have these loans been paid off? Does the +300k include these loans owed to our own men?
Or are we truly operating at a profit?
Any information would be appreciated. Cheers

Agree1 Disagree2

23 Mar 2017 13:53:29
The accounts actually show a loss of £238,000. No idea why the media are reporting profit.

23 Mar 2017 14:26:26
LVBluenose, the profit reported is annual performance. Any loans currently in place will be shown in the balance sheet which Rangers don't report in their interims. Will see it come the summer when they release their annual accounts.

ABHABH1 - the media are reporting our operating profit i. e. our profits from our footballing trade. its a key business indicator and shows that we can be self sustaining with our standard football operations. the additional costs to the business are outwith our football operations although I am concerned by the "other charges" of £451k but that's probably for paying off Barton's contract so likely a one off expense we won't see again next year.

23 Mar 2017 15:26:50
the loans that we got from directors will be the reason we are running in a profit as these loans will be included in these figures realised.
So if it wasn't from there loans we would still be operating at a loss so essentially they have just gave us enough loans to make it look good instead of another loss.

They also said they would require funding in june i suspect majority of that will come from the fans season ticket money in june that's fine cause fans always back the team the board will probably also be required to put money in next year at some point again unless we sort problems with sport direct or put a run together in europe or sell players on for profit or the share issue goes through.

24 Mar 2017 10:16:34
That's complete nonsense Craig. I've already said the loans go to the balance sheet. the P&L is where your profit for the year is calculated and the loans have no impact on that at all. Pick up a finance book before you come on spouting such nonsense again.

26 Mar 2017 10:23:18
Very doubtful if FFP comes into the equation. Could be wrong but I suspect that unaudited accounts etc. will cause problems

28 Mar 2017 00:16:05
Password I'm pretty sure rangers have the required audited accounts but can you explain why ffp would come into it when near enough every team is in debt real madrids debt has risen yearly over the last decade to a sum in the region of 600 euros but don't have a problem getting their license to play in Europe

21 Mar 2017 19:15:04
A heard today from a good source that Mike Ashley has nothing against rangers and it's against king that's why the story has came about king going about the wrong way buying us got told that Ashley and going to ruin king.

Agree1 Disagree4

21 Mar 2017 20:02:50
The disgraceful contracts he has, was all to ruin king. His merchandise contracts are ruining rangers not dave king.

21 Mar 2017 22:30:18
Seriously? where do you get this single fish from?

Fat cashly was screwing us over long before Dave King got involved

22 Mar 2017 09:24:25
More crap!

22 Mar 2017 17:01:56
Ashely is a rat.

26 Mar 2017 10:31:23
Ashley is a businessman who knows how to make money unlike the current people running this club.
I understand the frustration but he is doing nothing illegal and has signed contracts which were agreed by previous crooks running the club.
I do not believe a word DK says and his actions relating to MW and team show 9 to me anyway) that the club is still being run by a poor businessman.
The soft loan investments will have to be paid back at some point. How much has DK actually put in from his own pocket? I for one will not be putting any of my hard earned cash onto the table when, once again, they come looking for the real supporters to buy into their next brilliant plan

17 Mar 2017 00:21:25
Does anyone know what's happening with our puma kit deal and our 32Red shirt sponsorship? I know we've supposedly another 1 year to go with puma, but our 32Red shirt sponsorship deal ends at the end of this season! Our new kit will be due out soon and still we don't know for definite, who will be manufacturing it! I thought by march we were seemingly going to hear something from king, regarding this!

Agree1 Disagree5

18 Mar 2017 17:03:46
Supercooper at least once a week for the past few months? You have been on here saying every sports manufacturer from under armour to Dunlop have been buying out puma and striking a record breaking deal with the club . Are you know saying you don't actually know? 😂😂😂

18 Mar 2017 21:47:01
Supercooper you are our man in the know when it comes to all things on shirt sponsorship.

19 Mar 2017 17:44:30
To be fair cooper that's is very true you have been on with regular updates saying this n that regarding shirt updates 😂😂😂

16 Mar 2017 20:49:19
I posted last month about Warburton and Weir claiming loss of earnings as they did not resign and most disagreed with it. Today's newspaper states Mark Warburton bitter legal fight will continue despite his appointment as Nottingham Forest gaffer and insists they did not resign. Another legal battle, more expenses for King.

Agree2 Disagree6

17 Mar 2017 09:17:13
Congratulations on your scoop. Go and have a mini Battenburg to celebrate.

26 Mar 2017 10:33:51
Gor, DK has not spent a penny of his own cash so once again the club will be paying (i. e. the cash the supporters and soft loanees money)
DK is a story teller and tells supporters what they want to hear.
I do not trust him and never have


Rangers Finances 2

Rangers Finances 3

Log In or Register to post

Remember me

Forgot Pass