Rangers Finances 3


Use our rumours form to send us rangers transfer rumours.

(single word yields best result)

Correct Score Competition Entry

08 Apr 2017 13:16:46
After listening to Kings interview a couple weeks ago I thought maybe just maybe Ashley would back down a little regarding replica kits etc as king stated he is working on new deal in place for pre-season but if anything Ashley seems to be turning the screw, I cannot comprehend why these judges cannot see we are getting scammed and put an end to this. Also Green getting off Scott free in the sunset with our cash.

Agree0 Disagree0

08 Apr 2017 13:53:49
Judges see legally binding signed contracts and adjudicate accordingly it doesn't matter if we are getting scammed as you said the deal was done and we were grateful for it AT THE TIME . king should have negotiated and pled the Rangers case instead of going full tilt on the attack and putting Ashley's back up. kings bluster at suing Ashley is getting us nowhere and costing the club thousands in litigation that we can ill afford all he did is appease the fans with ill thought out rhetoric. there's a saying he should have remembered " don't poke the bear" Imo he has now crossed the point of no return with SD And it is Rangers who will pay the price for his bullish attitude. Ashley has the signed contracts and the money to see it out to the bitter end.

08 Apr 2017 15:37:03
Can't disagree with anything you've said Johnny but it is also true that Green had a legal responsibility to the shareholders of RFC to get the best deal and the deal he struck with Ashley does not honor that. There is cause to debate here and the recent acceptance that Mike can continue with his litigation does not mean that its done and dusted for this argument. There is a ways to go yet.

By the way, why the cheeky H in your name eh? :)

08 Apr 2017 16:34:18
Because my name is John not Jon why else would there be an h in Johnny or are you just someone looking for them in every non ( I love king ) posts. as I said green signed it and agreed the board at the time were probably grateful for any retail deal at the time. if the shareholders were hard done to why not act then rather than wait till green has gone. it would have been ratified at the time by shareholders

08 Apr 2017 21:39:48
Look lads the contract has always been legally binding, albeit it did not show us much benefit. However, king with his approach and his advocates advice has led "the protest boys" by the nose, and has cost us several millions.

As I have said for a long time, this situation should have been negotiated to a mutually better situation for both parties, but king thinks he can out-muscle a far superior businessman than him. Now he must accept the pickings that ashley gives him.
Duccablue, it is done and dusted and dk must eat humble pie.

09 Apr 2017 03:27:18
The high court has still to issue it's resolution.

09 Apr 2017 11:49:50
Duccablue. If there was not a case to answer the review judge would have dismissed the case to ensure high court time was not wasted.

Get real bears, king will lose, and Rangers will pay the penalty, both compensation and costs.

10 Apr 2017 05:06:29
King may lose. its not a certainty though. You understand how courts work right? Two QC's present their arguments and, in this case, a judge will offer his resolution. Ashley has won nothing yet.

10 Apr 2017 11:44:48
Clutching at straws ducca, the blame lies with the directors that signed on behalf of us, not ashley.
They are guilty of not carrying out their responsibility to protect their fellow shareholders' interests, and should have been pursued through the courts. All ashley done was to screw a great deal for his company.

10 Apr 2017 12:26:07
duccablue. you are wrong in saying Ashley has won nothing yet. he was suing Rangers for beach of contract and damages and king went to court in an attempt to stop Ashley bringing the action to court and lost. therefore if king lost then Ashley has won the right to have his claim of breach of contract and damages to be heard in the high court he may not win his case but the fact that king and rangers could not stop the action does not bode well for the final outcome and could well cost rangers a substantial amount of money in damages or even just to defend the action. either way I feel king will use this as an excuse for NO MAJOR spending next season and once again Ashley is the big bad Geordie denying us money. as I said earlier if king had sat at the table with Ashley instead of bullish bluster and threats we might have came out of this in a firmer footing. but king goes all out to get the fans behind him and uses the blame game against anyone but himself to justify not Fullfilling his pre take over fantasy promises

10 Apr 2017 18:04:13
How could anyone suggest Ashley is not the big bad Geordie? He orchestrated the board to sign whatever he proposed even though he only held 9% of shares and no matter how many sweet nothings DK whispered in his fat lug he was never going to give us more than our 7p from every pound. Remember he made us sell Lewis Macleod for less than a million then made us spend a chunk of it on 5 Diddy loan players from the Newcastle stiffs. He never once did anything that benefited our football club

10 Apr 2017 21:53:27
PH, There is no doubt we were shafted by ashley, but maybe you should look at why the directors, of Glasgow Rangers, signed on the dotted line.

11 Apr 2017 13:02:14
Billy, I have no idea why those muppets signed these deals, but my best guess is as I mentioned already they were doing what Ashley told them to do and not what was in the best interests of our club. David Somers, Charles Green, The Easdales, none of them challenged any of the deals Ashley offered.

11 Apr 2017 22:29:16
PH, To sign such a contract, with the onerous conditions for our club, they should have been held to scrutiny by dk and the board. This should have been our point of attack and not the contract, as the terms will be watertight. That is why I have always firmly believed that king got his tactics all wrong, when dealing with ashley.

If he had taken this route I, again, firmly believe that ashley would have had to compromise with us. Ashley, obviously had the original board over a barrel, but it is difficult to speculate, as that could potentially end you up in court.

12 Apr 2017 03:52:57
My understanding is that this is about withdrawing the name and image rights. King hasn't ripped up the contracts as such but has exercised the clubs right (as he sees it) to deny rangers retail the use of the name and crest. Ashley is seeking to overturn that position and confirm he (rangers retail) retains the right to use them. If he is successful then talk of awarding compensation will be looked at.

12 Apr 2017 21:05:25
My understanding is that dk etc. are attacking the conditions of the contract and their validity, due to the returns received by the club, instead of attacking the signatories for the conditions they accepted.

07 Apr 2017 19:46:20
Mike Ashley has won his case against dave king really the retail contract and the case can now go ahead to the high court for resolution. thoughts?

Agree2 Disagree0

07 Apr 2017 23:29:26
I know it's not what you want to hear but a company can't just tear up contracts that a previous chairman has signed because they don't like the terms of the contract , it really is that simple.

09 Apr 2017 16:26:16
A company can do as they choose with contracts but it is breach of contract and in the absence of a sensible negotiation for better terms the courts will now decide the remedy. I support DK approach rather than continue to be deliberately destroyed by MA. Can we not see that MA has zero interest in the future prosperity of Rangers

06 Apr 2017 22:47:17
Regarding TV income; surely Rangers could get a better deal if they brokered their own deals? Possibly a chance for the Old Firm to work together?

I'm also thinking that Rangers and Celtic should be more involved in any future negotiations as the Old Firm are the basis of any deal! Other Clubs can say what they want but realistically its the Old Firm who pull in the Buyer whoever it is and therefore we must be more involved.

We must utilise our product to its full potential and one way of doing this would be to organize a small pre-season Cup competition abroad involving the Old Firm and 2-4 other teams. I know it may be difficult to pull off but if it can be done then why not!

We need to do something regarding pre-season and the money is there! We need to utilise every source of revenue as we are being suffocated financially! A Club our size has huge potential and a competition like this if negotiated correctly could be a minimum £1 million annually.

Do the thing in America who have a huge audience to sell to Old Firm fans there! What's stopping us? could probably get more from 1 weeks work than a Club gets for winning the League!

A TV Deal, Sponsorship, Advertising, and all that goes with it! Something like this could grow and after a few years. Teams in America would want to be invited!

And if I hear the argument that it may be too much for the players; Bull! We use the squad it's a Friendly Cup! There's an idea in there somewhere yeah?

Agree1 Disagree4

06 Apr 2017 23:01:35
And why should Celtic help you out? Celtic already get invited to these tournaments and if I'm not wrong turned a few down . They don't need the money 😋.

07 Apr 2017 23:35:53
Not a chance in hell, why would we, it's bad enough having to play against you 4-6 times, as for the tv contracts they should be shared out as fairly as possible between all the clubs, Celtic and rangers would be nothing without the other teams to play against, as a matter of fact the more financially stable you are, the bigger slice of the tv pot you should get as a reward.

08 Apr 2017 14:00:49
Thought something like a pre-season Cup in America involving the Old Firm would be great for both Clubs! Excellent for promoting the Brand of Both and I know Celtic are financially stable but the money to be made is surely something that can't be ignored and like I said it could become an event in the calendar if prompted correctly.

Both have huge fan bases and the amount of money major Company's
spend on time for their adverts is incredible! If something like this could attract numbers on the box its ludicrous to ignore and even madder to think by doing it is helping the other out. Its the best thing to do financially for both. We have this Global Fan Base, but do not use it to its full potential!

08 Apr 2017 17:04:26
@andy1872 as previously stated above . Celtic already get invited to all the international cup preseason tournaments . We do not need your club to bring this money in . We have options every close season . Last seasons paid all of brendans salary for the year and some of Scott sinclair fees .

04 Apr 2017 11:54:42
Any word on the tax case? I thought there was a two day hearing a few weeks back?

Agree0 Disagree0

05 Apr 2017 16:42:07
beginning of march but i'm not sure what the outcome was
but i wouldn't be surprised if its thrown out and all our years in the duldrums where for nothing

05 Apr 2017 20:43:23
I think you're right James and the appeal will be thrown out.

06 Apr 2017 15:35:59
If the appeal is thrown out that means the current ruling will remain, ie the EBTs were illegal. That was the latest legal ruling on it. The current appeal is by BDO who are trying to argue the EBTs were legal as that will reduce HMRC's massive tax claim and leave more cash in the (very small) pot for the other 250 or so creditors. Whoever 'wins' the case, our years in the doldrums are still down to SDM who relied too heavily on the use of EBTs thus exposing us to the risk of years of legal battles with HMRC, which is exactly how it turned out. All our troubles go back to his tax strategies.

06 Apr 2017 19:44:22
Impossible to argue with that.

07 Apr 2017 15:56:35
Yes Paulineblue72, I totally agree, and with whyte's fraud trial due to start this month, we will, again, be in the headlines for all the wrong reasons. I firmly believe that the revelations that will unfold in the fraud trial will rock us to the foundations.
The trial is forecast to last 3 months+, and finished just in time for next season. I nteresting times ahead.

01 Apr 2017 10:02:56
Is it true Dave King is buying the channel Dave? 40 million for it? My oh my if true what chance do we have of having any money for transfers?

Agree0 Disagree2

01 Apr 2017 10:47:32
Of course it's true, just like the Donald is going to buy up Disney.

01 Apr 2017 17:30:49
ha ha, check the blooming date

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 Disagree2

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.

31 mar 2017 16:14:17
listen to you guys our very dodgy board as per usual u know more about them than we do.

be all and end all you say we are a new club yet want us to pay the debts of old club. message to the deranged we don't care what u want or think of us we are rangers going for title #55 and we don't care if you think differently.

we are not deluded well most of us aren't, we know you lot are miles ahead of us but we don't need to match you financially to beat you all we have to do is get more consistent against the rest next season and leave the old firm games to deal with themselves and if we can do that we may just do the unthinkable and win the league.

me personally think it will take us till you are going for ten before we get close but hey positivity is never a bad thing

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 Disagree10

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 Disagree1

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 Disagree14

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

Agree3 Disagree17

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

29 Mar 2017 14:46:09
Delbhoy, TV revenue and season ticket sales go through the P&L as turnover so you can see this without the need for a balance sheet.

This is all what ifs and maybes now with the easdales and Mike Ashley. I personally can't see them selling their shares to King at 20p. obviously you believe they could but I don't have anything further to add to this point.

I did chuckle at your UEFA comeback lol you are right though that the guideline is €5m so excuse me for my misquote earlier. I done some calculations though and checked up the rules and found the following:

Acceptable deviation is €5m, however can exceed this level up to €30m if such excess is entirely covered by contributions from equity participant and/ or related parties. additionally, the reporting period commences period ending in the calendar year that UEFA club competitions commence i.e. the 3 years are last season, this season and next season.

at the moment looking at Rangers profits after tax we have an accumulated loss from last year and this year of €4.7m (£3.3m + £238k losses converted at average FX rate to Euros) so we have a €300k leeway at the moment for next season. plus we can demonstrate improvement over the last couple of years as we posted a PAT in the 2013/14 season of £8m, 2014/ 15 season of £7.6m, 2015/ 16 £3.3m and now this season so far we are at a £238k loss. this would look very very favourable for us as shows clear improvement year on year.

I recall Mike Ashley dropping his case against the SFA over Dave Kings fit and proper ruling? STV reported it:


That's right, so how does the TAB enforcing King to make the offer of 20p connect the dots for you to share manipulation? forcing King to make the offer won't impact the share price if it were to trade in the market.

Ha! you mean the stories that were rubbished only yesterday? check out the daily record as they have a piece on it. The fellas you are referring to had joint roles at the club which was causing corporate governance issues so they reorganised their roles to be compliant.

I can assure you they are still board members. As I say, google paul murray and look under the news section for the daily record article.

29 Mar 2017 18:55:56
Papa bear a pleasure for your argument without resorting to the usual obsessed timmy! It's all about the rangers! Garbage posted by some .

Sea on ticket money is spread across the season not just up to December? As with future tv money? My point is have these been included to inflate the numbers as all know there is less turnover in the next 6 months figures?

Yes there is a lot if ifs n buts! I did say some of my points were hypothetical for the sake of discussion!

The uefa ffp is as we both agreed 5mill euro loss over 3 seasons which could rise to ( 30 mill euros ) those depends on being able to service these debts? Most teams have single players whom they could sell to service said debt/ losses . The problem rangers face with being out the threshold is the " going concern " published in your last audited accounts! Also any outstanding footballing debts . The impending court case with warbs n Co throws a major spanner in the works from my understanding? I may be wrong .

I may not be as articulate as you so manipulation of shares may be the wrong word used! He acted with a consortium to gave 34% which is 4% above the allowed number . Mr Letham cooperated with the tab panel and provide emails proving king acted in cohorts and that is why king was found guilty of mis practice and is now forced to offer the 20p buyout .

As for any reporting in the daily record? No thanks . The paper who fore told of craig whytes wealth of the radar? Nothing but poor journalism . I will leave it lol.

As for the terminations? It was not a false story! It did happen . It was a behind the scenes reshuffle? My point was the timing? Why now? After 2 years?


Rangers Finances

Rangers Finances 2

Log In or Register to post

Remember me

Forgot Pass