Rangers Finances 3

 

Use our rumours form to send us rangers transfer rumours.


(single word yields best result)
 

Correct Score Competition Entry

25 Nov 2016 19:36:47
well the meeting is over and King has spoken. Like i have said on here a few times, he IS trying to run a business with serious problems created by those who were there before him. On the playing front we are not much better than an average side yet we are in 3rd spot, and around the stadium things are going on gradually too, but we have little choice but to walk before we run with Ashley still holding a gun to our heads.
We will have to live within our means and if that means selling as well as buying players then so be it, we just have to shop in a slightly better market if possible but we have to bide our time until we are back where we belong. and always will be.

Agree20 Disagree16

26 Nov 2016 15:13:13
6 yes SIX disagree with the above post? WTF! Are you Timothys in disguise?

26 Nov 2016 20:42:20
the dark side are leaving their finger prints.

25 Nov 2016 16:13:40
Judging by the demeanor of King and co as they left the AGM I wouldn't put any money on Res 11 passing or that we defeat Ashley in court next week.

Could be wrong.

Agree2 Disagree4

25 Nov 2016 18:56:15
Hope you are wrong Naz and that everyone understood significance of getting this decision correct. Think it's next week before we find out.

26 Nov 2016 16:15:37
Too much to hope for .

27 Nov 2016 20:16:12
Ed, can you say what % of Shareholders need to vote for Resolution 11 to be passed and what combined % shareholding is held by Ashley and Easdale Bloc

Cheers.

{Ed039's Note - The Ashley/Easdale block accounts for approx. 16% of shareholding, there will also be some other shareholders who will vote against it as they will not want their shareholding diluted in half, if the resolution is passed Rangers have 12 months to put out a share issue, which if fully sold is anticipated would bring in £20m, however King and other board members/shareholders have already provided £14m in soft loans and these soft loans if not repaid in cash will more than likely be returned in shares, therefore the remainder would only raise £6m, and a significant amount of that would need to be used to pay for legal fees and other fees associated with a share issue. Rangers will not make a lot of money from a share issue, the key in the resolution being passed is it would dilute the shareholding of Ashley/Easdale etc to 8% reducing their shareholder influence)

27 Nov 2016 20:42:51
Cheers Ed, to get resolution passed is a specific percentage required to vote for?

Yes agree objective here is to reduce influence and value of the Ashley block.

{Ed039's Note - 75% of votes placed needed to pass resolution)

27 Nov 2016 20:58:43
Many thanks Ed.

{Ed039's Note - No problem, I just realised I didn't answer that one on your original question)

28 Nov 2016 08:50:29
Just reading it did not pass so the directors better get their cheque books out for more soft loans.

The reality is we are a loss making organisation and there are no signs of that trend being reversed. So the big questions are, what will our debt be in march when the real accounts are released? and how long are the directors going to keep providing soft loans before deciding enough is enough?

Now add to that expected decline in season ticket sales because of the product on the park and gap between us and celtic.

18 Nov 2016 21:19:39
All this rumour talk of investment because we are playing a friendly is rubbish.

Legally we are fecked for a long time for a number of reasons.

Listing on stock market, and nomad are all challenges ahead.


Longer term I'm in favour of building a new stadium "60k" seated and standing area. Do I see this happening no.

We need our kit deal sorted.

we need investors that believe in rangers and that feel they will get a return in investment and I'm not sure that will happen due to our game not being made available around the world.

Despite our form rangers are growing and exciting times lie ahead.

Agree3 Disagree7

19 Nov 2016 12:35:51
Exciting times in Scottish football? On tenter hooks in anticipation.

21 Nov 2016 22:26:05
Does anyone know what's wrong with Lionbrand.? there appears to be number stories circulating about money supposed to be going to the club etc is all a myth? surely this not true.

13 Nov 2016 21:41:20
Guys, I'm starting to doubt Frank McParland. I'm not sure giving the state of the business side of Rangers and the none entity that is our commercial deals that we can take any further risks.

Dodoo, Rossiter, Windass, Crooks all signed for development fees yet expected to perform as first team players.

Gilks, Hill, Sanderos, Barton, Kranjcar may provide depth/ cover and experience but add no financial value to Rangers.

Barton was a disaster and the quality of players mentioned can be debated.

I think the financial hit over the Barton saga will undoubtedly have impacts on first team squad and with the links to Martyn Waghorn being a target down south I'd happily see him go as I don't rate him, he's starting to look really bulky and to me he's lost mobility and certainly not good enough for a wide right position. If we get £1.5M to £2M for him as rumoured I'd be happy with that as he cost us £300K

Of the 10-11 acquisitions made far too many haven't made an impression and certainly not forcing their way through for a starting eleven place and I think that's the main reason for the inconsistency in Warburtons selections this season thus far.

I think our head of recruitment must shoulder some blame here to and yes regardless of budget as we have shelled out £20K a week on Barton, £500K on O'Halloran and £1.8M on Garner he's on a 3 year deal and must be on between £15K to £20K a week.

On contracts and fees alone our budget is well north of £10 million this season not to mention staff additions.

Our most prized assist imo is a soon to be 37 year Kenny Miller who deserves a jersey and that of a very good shot stopper in Wes Foderingham.

Imo Rangers have big issues from the captaincy to the strength of a first team that has a squad of misfits and surplus from other clubs that have no top team experience.

I just feel Warbs is in the s*** now with tactics while trusting McParland with a budget is another worrying issue.

Thoughts guys?

Agree11 Disagree4

14 Nov 2016 08:55:32
I would say very accurate, we don’t have a bean to our name, very few asset. But we are Super Rangers.

My main worry is when we come second, how many rounds do we need to qualify to get into the Europa League? We badly need money from the competition and I can't see us winning 3 double headers against experienced Europa Cup teams? Also will we be seeded?

14 Nov 2016 09:01:14
3/ 9 Have been good - Gilks, Hill, Windass

2/ 9 have been okay, injury has been a problem - Rossiter and Kranjcar.

2/ 9 yet to prove themselves - Crooks and Dodoo.

2/ 9 Waste of a wage - barton, Senderos

Last years signings - Fod, Kiernan, Wilson, Tav, Holt, halliday, Waghorn, O'hal. For me all these players except from Waghorn have added some sort of value to our club.

14 Nov 2016 11:43:10
forzarfc the financial hit on barton is not serious because with his 2 months wages this frees up £20k a week in jan which woud allow 3 players to be brought in without any additioal expenditure clint hill now appears to beour best option at centre half we should do a deeal to get senderos off the books and free up some more money for wages.

14 Nov 2016 16:32:12
Most papers reporting 1 million pay off I'm sure that's nearer the truth as there is a non disclosure clause in payoff why would JB have taken a small amount when he could have picked up the money anyway and sold the story to multiple papers home and abroad. Blue blood you have no points as UEFA see you as a new club so no ranking points at all.

14 Nov 2016 17:24:42
the pay off was nowhere near £1m the match betting alone could have been enough to have contract torn up.

14 Nov 2016 18:34:02
Largebill. then why wasn't it torn up. saving rangers thousands. talking through a hole in your hat again. those blue specs are tainting your thinking try and stick to facts that you know not just poo poo somebody elses thoughts because they don't suit your everything is rosie philosophy.

15 Nov 2016 01:20:35
Large Bill are you really DJ.

15 Nov 2016 06:38:30
it wasnt torn up because how could you go to an employment tribunal having let off others and excused thier behaviour it would have been seen for the excuse it was if they had sacked him.

15 Nov 2016 09:57:00
kwaj better looking than him.

16 Nov 2016 14:19:06
Blueblood we have no points because we haven't played in Europe for 5 years we got knocked out in both 1st round qualifiers which = 0 points.

16 Nov 2016 17:45:40
Rangers will have 3 qualifying rounds and will not be seeded in any rounds due to the fact they have no European club coefficient points.

17 Nov 2016 13:31:45
frank mcparland has worked wonders considering there are no funds available . he has signed in the team that won us the championship and added quality to the team this year and we have been unlucky with rossiter and niko both have real quality!

lose faith in the man all you want I see him as a genius.

19 Nov 2016 20:53:26
UEFA don't see us as a new club.

11 Nov 2016 08:33:38
Rangers releasing a share option at next AGM. King won't put money in.

Agree1 Disagree3

11 Nov 2016 11:27:12
Where did you hear this?

I highly doubt it is true and here is why. If you recall Ashley took Rangers to court to block a previous share issue and that ruling still stands. So we can't have another share issue until that ruling is overturned at court. To the best of my knowledge we have not tried to get it overturned in court.

11 Nov 2016 13:12:02
don't we need a nomad for a share issue.

11 Nov 2016 13:36:41
What has this got to do with a NOMAD? I don't believe any of us mentioned a NOMAD.

I just said that there is currently a court order to prevent a future share issue at Rangers.

11 Nov 2016 21:00:55
it can only be passed on vote of present shareholders.

11 Nov 2016 07:38:24
Rangers don't have Money for Warb in Jan and are releasing another share option at the next AGM.

Agree0 Disagree3

09 Nov 2016 18:03:58
This is a wee piece of news i heard about finance possibly getting better at our club. To ibrox noise and all fellow bears out there here's what i've heard. As we all know, rangers are going over to germany, in january, to play RB leipzig in a friendly. Here's what i've been told by a friend of mine who's from scotland and is an sv hamburg season ticket holder. He has it on good authority, from a prominent person who has a voice within sv hamburg, that rangers WILL be replacing 32Red (deal runs out at the end of the season) as their shirt sponsors, with RED BULL who own leipzig. They will according to him become our new shirt sponsors, taking over from 32Red at the end of this season. He also tells me that RED BULL looking to put money into rangers, with the possibility of an ibrox stand being sponsored and having the RED BULL name emblazoned on it. He also went on to tell me that RED BULL want to actually buy a football club in britain, with rangers and an unnamed english club at the top of their list. This potentially, could be tremendous news for us financially! He assures me there is a lot of talk about this in germany. Well fellow bears and ibrox noise, what's your take on this info i've given you? Must admit it could be brilliant news for us, if it comes to fruition! Has anyone else heard anything regarding this?

Ed please post.

Agree4 Disagree5

09 Nov 2016 19:57:53
This would be good for us Southsideger, I hope your comments come to pass.

10 Nov 2016 10:58:42
I am a big formula one fan and I was watching the build up to the Brazilian Grand Prix the other day.
One on the journalists mentioned about Red Bill possibly cutting there investment in the Red Bull F1 as the want to invest in to a British football club.
Although no club was mentioned, between this and the OP there could be some truth in this.

10 Nov 2016 11:45:09
What about the rule of owning more than 1 club? Could that not be a stumbling block.

10 Nov 2016 12:14:03
Why would a big company like that want to own a Scottish football club? It makes no sense, other than a possible ego boost, for anyone to invest in a very poor league. What value could they ever get out of it? It's Scottish football, and we are where we are. There would be far more value in investing in a mid table EPL club.

11 Nov 2016 11:31:30
They done it to an Austrian club and their league is less high profile than the Scottish league as they don't have a big derby. So I wouldn't rule it out based on our league profile alone.

If they are putting money in I think it would just be to promote their brand name and would probably involve a payment to have RB in our clubs name or the stadium named RB. I can't see them buying a stake in the club because that could cause them trouble if more than one of their clubs qualified for Europe and their main investment seems to be RB Leipzig.

11 Nov 2016 12:25:38
red bull don't have a club in the uk do they? so if i'm right and they don't the rule you are stating does not apply memaself.
and big companys do could want to come to rangers or celtic as sponsors I don't think they will invest in the club though.
a sponsor deal could be a lucrative one for both sides as they will get global viewings of the old firm seeing their logoit may only be a few times a year but this is still attractive to big company's.

11 Nov 2016 23:49:01
James your wrong, it's for European competitions (which is the only place English clubs can meet Scottish btw) and I'm sure it's a UEFA rule and quite rightly too.

08 Nov 2016 12:50:48
A lot of fans calling for managers head need to take a step back and think . we are doing ok considering where we were 4 yrs ago . my bigger concern is what the board are doing to attract investors and sorting out a share issue and if we are going back on stock exchange. we are losing money every month and we need to sort that out hopefully at this month's AGM we will get a clearer picture of the boards plans for the way forward.

Agree2 Disagree0

08 Nov 2016 14:14:17
Bigtrfc, I do not think that we will see any "real" investment until after the court cases are settled. We will continue with "soft" loans until we inject more funds via 2017-2018 season tickets. There will be a shortfall in our funding this year and then we will have no income in January, so further loans will be needed very, very soon.
Hopefully you are correct about information being available on forward planning at the Agm, but I have my doubts.
As far as MW is concerned, he is the one who has said he got all the backing necessary at the start of the season, so as far as team performances are concerned the buck stops with him.

08 Nov 2016 17:20:28
billy your correct u rise and all by your own decisions he at sometime must recognise there has to be a plan b and a lot o the continual pass pass has at times be more direct.

09 Nov 2016 08:57:53
The other big factor that prevails, is the basic economics of running a club the size of Glasgow Rangers. We need a massive input of cash, every year, to progress as a club, but due to various factors [ court cases, merchandising etc. ] this is not possible, because the funds could be at risk.
At the moment we are trying to climb the greasy pole to achieve the status we expect, so expect the same ups and downs associated with that type of climb.

11 Nov 2016 13:10:32
so the dates set for court is 1st and 2nd of December correct?
I do think that the case will go on for another few months at least but does anyone think that we have any chance of winning this case against Ashley, if so do you have any info that would help rest my mind?

01 Nov 2016 13:45:51
After talk about money, investment etc. Can any bears shed any light on us getting a nomad and raising funds through a share issue. I'm unsure of the process and the obstacles stopping us.

Agree0 Disagree1

01 Nov 2016 17:52:24
I don't think it's as easy to 'get a nomad's, . Think they have to agree and accept some kind of responsibility for our financial well-being and current contracts. Which no-one will touch with a bargepole.

01 Nov 2016 18:51:25
Your last nomad resigned because they could not confirm the status of the company dealing on the alternative market. Nothing has changed.

01 Nov 2016 19:09:28
So no new share issue or resettlement of current shares till you have an authorised nomad, or until the the current issue is disqualified. I'm sure others will fill in the gaps.

02 Nov 2016 09:51:13
An important thing to remember in this is that Ashley went to court and won, thus blocking a share issues. If we wanted to do another share issue we would have to take the matter to court and get a judge to allow it.

At this moment in time, there is not much point being on AIM as it just adds additional cost for little gain. Therefore, there is no need for a NOMAD.

02 Nov 2016 10:53:04
in the lubs present finanial position we do not need a nomad no share issue would be suessful beause the lub is still showing a trading loss which will ontinue till the 2017/ 2018season.

04 Nov 2016 16:54:11
Bigwull, It is not so much the trading loss, it is the fact that we are not a viable investment for the major players, investment wise.
As BossHogg quite correctly states, a nomad is not worth any money that "could" be raised, and as far as 2017/ 18 is concerned that is pie in the sky. Only when the internal mess is sorted out will we have the chance to, possibly, move forward.

06 Nov 2016 15:32:39
You having a little trouble with your c big wull.

29 Oct 2016 18:01:25
Well done Gers and now let's kick on😁
On the merchandice situation 100 grand from the fat man is a joke😡😡 I honestly can't remember the last tim I seen a Gers top on the streets which is very very said

Agree2 Disagree2

31 Oct 2016 17:51:08
yes keep it up.

31 Oct 2016 18:56:51
So what happens when Ashley wins his case, will rangers have the funds to pay compensation and costs. Will it be administration one, or possibly liquidation two, and back to tier four, sorry tier five, new firm derby rangers v glasgow bsc.

31 Oct 2016 19:02:09
Yes well done, looking more positive. Still a long way to go and as we know many areas requiring attention and being worked on.

01 Nov 2016 17:34:08
iamnoboyscout
Ashley sueing for £1m (and I expect enforcement of contract) . Relatively small money based on operating expenses already funded by King, etc.
Small also compared to the alternative - take £100k pa for 6 remaining years of contract compared to a reasonable assessment of merchandising income of £5m pa. £1m against £29m - no brainer
BTW allways had to be Ashley who initiated legal action as RFC only lever was to withdraw trademark rights so RRL had to sue.

02 Nov 2016 10:00:38
Iain, please don't mistake this as a defence of Ashley as I know the retail deal is shocking. However, I felt it worth mentioning that prior to King trying to rip up the agreement, we were making more than 100K p. a from the retail deal. Not only that, we did not have to pay a shortfall to Ashley (he is guaranteed 4 million minimum per season) because he was exceeding the 4M mark.

As things stand my opinion is King was stupid to do what he done as it cost us revenue and means it is likely that we will have to pay for the shortfall as well. Now add in the legal fees and the financial hit grows. At a time when we need every penny we can get, it just seems crazy to me to put ourselves in this situation.

All that being said, if King manages to get the contract torn up, I will be happy to concede that I was wrong in my assessment and gladly congratulate him on his risk paying off.

 


Rangers Finances


Rangers Finances 2

 
Log In or Register to post

User
Pass
Remember me

Forgot Pass