pollymac Posted November 5, 2019 Share Posted November 5, 2019 90 months since I posted [this], and it's as relevant now as it was back then. OPM to the rescue (or not). Plus ca change, etc. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bennett Posted November 5, 2019 Share Posted November 5, 2019 2 hours ago, pollymac said: 90 months since I posted [this], and it's as relevant now as it was back then. OPM to the rescue (or not). Plus ca change, etc. Quoted y mistake. ^ 23 hours ago, Drew Brees said: On 03/11/2019 at 10:35, steelmen said: So you’ll have the figures that king has put in? Not the close bros(?) loan, not the 3 bears not club 1872 but King himself. How much of his kids inheritance has he put in? Bodyswerved by the looks of it Notifications being switched off means I do miss stuff, no need to be a twat about it. On 03/11/2019 at 10:35, steelmen said: So you’ll have the figures that king has put in? Not the close bros(?) loan, not the 3 bears not club 1872 but King himself. How much of his kids inheritance has he put in? The highly respected Forbes have claimed that he's invested £10m per season, personally I thought it would've been much less. Will have a wee fig around the net later and see what I can I find. ( I'm sure I recall reading different figures recently) -2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steelmen Posted November 5, 2019 Share Posted November 5, 2019 If you can find the amount of shares the debtors got when converting their loans to shares it would give an indication of how much they each put in.I’ve looked but can’t see anything other than it happened.I really doubt the 10m figure, as that would mean he is bankrolling them on his own and their would be no need for the close bros loan. You can bet he would be shouting from the rooftops if he was the only one bank rolling them. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monkey Tennis Posted November 5, 2019 Share Posted November 5, 2019 7 hours ago, pollymac said: 90 months since I posted [this], and it's as relevant now as it was back then. OPM to the rescue (or not). Plus ca change, etc. While all this sounds excitingly familiar, it's really not. The EBT situation justly made all the difference last time. It's not present as a factor this time round though. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The DA Posted November 6, 2019 Share Posted November 6, 2019 9 hours ago, Monkey Tennis said: While all this sounds excitingly familiar, it's really not. The EBT situation justly made all the difference last time. It's not present as a factor this time round though. Pollymac's post is relevant, sort of. Agreed, the make-up of the debt in 2012 and 2019 appears to be different - as far as we know there have been no tax dodges this time round - but today's picture is still OPM financing the operation and a resulting sense of entitlement on the fans' part. If you ignore the EBT issue (and, in 2012, Rangers thought they could), Rangers were paying down their debt - as long as they kept competing in Europe. This time round, the debt keeps growing, masked only by the fact that eejits like King keep covering it with cash injections. Once the principals run out of money/come to their senses/lose the league and stop converting debt to equity, very possibly this season, the actual debt will start to grow and it all comes tumbling down. At which point Rangers fans will blame whoever chickened out first. OPM. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TavTastic Posted November 6, 2019 Share Posted November 6, 2019 6 hours ago, The DA said: Once the principals run out of money/come to their senses/lose the league and stop converting debt to equity, very possibly this season, the actual debt will start to grow and it all comes tumbling down. Or we increase our revenue by making profits on player trading rather than spending £6m-£9.5m net on player transfers. How worried are you about your own club btw? Because if you think our figures are especially bad then you must be worried no? Our wages/turnover ratio at half of yours. Our total expenditure as a % of income less than your wages as a % of income. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marshmallo Posted November 6, 2019 Share Posted November 6, 2019 https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/50315515 FYI 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ken Fitlike Posted November 6, 2019 Share Posted November 6, 2019 38 minutes ago, TavTastic said: Or we increase our revenue by making profits on player trading rather than spending £6m-£9.5m net on player transfers. How worried are you about your own club btw? Because if you think our figures are especially bad then you must be worried no? Our wages/turnover ratio at half of yours. Our total expenditure as a % of income less than your wages as a % of income. well, that would be a sensible way to go about things. Can you see it happening without a 'We Deserve Better' heads gone from 99% of the support 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TavTastic Posted November 6, 2019 Share Posted November 6, 2019 27 minutes ago, Ken Fitlike said: Can you see it happening without a 'We Deserve Better' heads gone from 99% of the support Yeah definitely. I haven't met anyone that doesn't expect that Morelos will be sold eventually for example. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The DA Posted November 6, 2019 Share Posted November 6, 2019 4 hours ago, TavTastic said: Or we increase our revenue by making profits on player trading rather than spending £6m-£9.5m net on player transfers. How worried are you about your own club btw? Because if you think our figures are especially bad then you must be worried no? Our wages/turnover ratio at half of yours. Our total expenditure as a % of income less than your wages as a % of income. There's a problem there. Sell your best and give up any chance of winning trophies. Based on losses this year (and counting the loans converted to shares as 'losses'), you'd need to make north of £15M profit on player sales each year to break even. And yes, I'm worried about my club. What's your point? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steelmen Posted November 6, 2019 Share Posted November 6, 2019 Problem with a club needing money is other clubs won’t pay what you want for your players.Forget Morelos’ anger management problems, the perceived desperation for money will drive down his value 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TavTastic Posted November 6, 2019 Share Posted November 6, 2019 1 hour ago, The DA said: Based on losses this year (and counting the loans converted to shares as 'losses'), you'd need to make north of £15M profit on player sales each year to break even. You can't extrapolate many of the costs this year to be the case for coming years as many aren't fixed costs. £6m net on player purchases and £5m on stadia and training ground improvements aren't fixed costs that will always form that signficant a part of our expenditure. In terms of the costs we are contractually stuck to such as £35m wage bill that's perfectly manageable if that remains only 65% of turnover. I brought up the Dundee United to show that our case isn't close to unique. In fact compared to DU or the average English Championship side it's prudent in comparison. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The DA Posted November 6, 2019 Share Posted November 6, 2019 46 minutes ago, TavTastic said: You can't extrapolate many of the costs this year to be the case for coming years as many aren't fixed costs. £6m net on player purchases and £5m on stadia and training ground improvements aren't fixed costs that will always form that signficant a part of our expenditure. In terms of the costs we are contractually stuck to such as £35m wage bill that's perfectly manageable if that remains only 65% of turnover. I brought up the Dundee United to show that our case isn't close to unique. In fact compared to DU or the average English Championship side it's prudent in comparison. This season's one-off costs will be replaced by next season's one-off costs - there's been a pattern over the last few years and a leopard doesn't often change its spots. Rangers will probably continue to buy expensive players (transfer fees or wages) until they catch Celtic or go bust. The fans won't wait three or four years for a youth crop to mature. There's been no sign of any financial prudence to date and I can't see any evidence that next season will be any different. I am prepared to be surprised though. As far as United go, we have a new owner and this is his first set of accounts. I'll reserve judgment until I see what he does next. I suspect he can cover this one-off shortfall but let's see what the 2020 accounts look like. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bennett Posted November 6, 2019 Share Posted November 6, 2019 7 hours ago, Ken Fitlike said: well, that would be a sensible way to go about things. Can you see it happening without a 'We Deserve Better' heads gone from 99% of the support Monkey back, interesting Ken back, are we now going to see our old pal Norman break his Sevco restraining order..... 38 minutes ago, The DA said: This season's one-off costs will be replaced by next season's one-off costs - there's been a pattern over the last few years and a leopard doesn't often change its spots. Rangers will probably continue to buy expensive players (transfer fees or wages) until they catch Celtic or go bust. The fans won't wait three or four years for a youth crop to mature. There's been no sign of any financial prudence to date and I can't see any evidence that next season will be any different. I am prepared to be surprised though. As far as United go, we have a new owner and this is his first set of accounts. I'll reserve judgment until I see what he does next. I suspect he can cover this one-off shortfall but let's see what the 2020 accounts look like. Aye its been 5 or 6 years of constant one off costs , obviously some inherited issues but wasting millions on pointless legal fights is madness. Next season will be probably see another large one off cost. Again tho the board have been upfront about having to cover losses if we were to compete. You now have a team with a fair few young/ish players (some internationals) who do have the potential to sell on. -2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Muzz1886 Posted November 6, 2019 Share Posted November 6, 2019 (edited) 9 hours ago, TavTastic said: Or we increase our revenue by making profits on player trading rather than spending £6m-£9.5m net on player transfers. How worried are you about your own club btw? Because if you think our figures are especially bad then you must be worried no? Our wages/turnover ratio at half of yours. Our total expenditure as a % of income less than your wages as a % of income. With all due respect to you, salary % to turnover ratio isn't anywhere near as relevant as cash in the bank and net current assets. RFC have £25m net current liabilities and £1m in the bank. That was in June. The accounts state that funding is needed right now - Nov19 is clearly quoted - with at least £10m needed between now and the end of the season. This is before taking into account further soft loans received since Jun-19 and shelling out another £11.5m on players. There are numerous other things that should cause alarm - interest accrued on deferring transfers and numerous contingent liabilities being just two of them. But hey, you beat bottom of the league Hearts in a Semi final, so life is good, right? Edited November 6, 2019 by Muzz1886 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RaithTheRover Posted November 14, 2019 Share Posted November 14, 2019 Well. Well. Well... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RossBFaeDundee Posted November 14, 2019 Share Posted November 14, 2019 The question is now... does this make the banter years more or less funny? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The OP Posted November 14, 2019 Share Posted November 14, 2019 16 minutes ago, RossBFaeDundee said: The question is now... does this make the banter years more or less funny? I'm still in the 'Why did no-one notice this error in the intervening years and multitude of cases and who are these sensible investors who would've swooped in if the liability was a bit less' camp until I see something more solid than "accounting sources now believe". 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ross. Posted November 14, 2019 Share Posted November 14, 2019 1 hour ago, RossBFaeDundee said: The question is now... does this make the banter years more or less funny? If it was remotely true it would make it far more funny. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Highlandmagyar 2nd Tier Posted November 14, 2019 Share Posted November 14, 2019 If this frck IP is true it just makes it so much sweeter. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.