Big Rangers Administration/Liquidation Thread - All chat here!

[dorlomin]

Dearie me, you should get out on your bike more and work some of that slabber out of your system

ETA: I've highlighted one choice passage as an illustration of how out of touch you are, having existed in your delusional cheats bubble for too long. Diddy clubs have always given players away, FFS - frequently to the OF

The bitterness!

You are just going to have to learn this the hard way.... when you are in debt its the money men who call the shots.

[dorlomin]

I do agree that the banks will have a major say in what happens, as they will want to ensure their debts are as secure as possible,

Existing debts.

It will take a while to sink in, so best leave people to their confusion for a while more.

[WaffenThinMint]

The real costs are of increased cost in raising debts, the anticipation that some clubs will need to be paying for services before they are received or at least put down a big deposit and the probability that the value of their playing assets will all fall as clubs simultaneously try to reduce wage bills and liquefy assets. There is a specific name for it when a highly leveraged market simultaneously attempts to liquefy assets and deleverage: Minsky moment. And trust me when you get a deflationary event kicking off, its gutwrenchingly difficult to stop. So your costs will be going up, income coming down, assets devaluing and will need more operating cash to maintain business operations. Highly leveraged clubs like say.... Hearts... may find no willing sources to roll over their existing commercial paper (or what ever the debt structure of the club is).

The credit risks are two fold. Firstly for each club in a deflationary market with shrinking revenue streams the risks of not being able to meet existing debt and less so new debt will make the debt riskier and the yeilds you are being asked for be going towards junk levels. And the second risk is AN Other club goes pop as the season goes on and this causes a serious blow to your (and the rest of the leagues) revenue, the potential of someone blowing up so bad they cannot fulfill fixtures is there. So there exists an inherent risk of chainreacting bankruptcies.

You really think your club chairmen are all thick? You really think they dont know how pissed you will all be? You really think its for a few bob TV money all this pish and bother is over?

Scottish football is a highly leveraged market with the risk of a significant part of its income stream ceasing to exist in an unstructured fashion. Any club with a reasonable debt portfolio will look like Greece or worse to people who lend the money. Ive said this all before.

But no the little villagers cant listen. Too many big words and not enough FTOF in my posts.

The down side risks are not 'a few less quid'. You will be trying to sell in a market already saturated by the Allan McGregors, Steve Naismiths and Sonny Alukos going for a song while every other club is trying to cut wage bills. You will be giving players away.

Good luck with it though. What have Rangers to loose? A couple of years in the lower divisions then up relatively debt free.

A fine example of how to put the smallest amount of thought into the largest number of words.

Bottom line: if the clubs do let Rangers away with it, Scottish professional football clubs will be treated as untrustworthy credit risks and may well find themselves having to pay for service up front - in other words, being treated like they were ALL in administration. Pissing off their fans will be the least of their worries.

That of course would suit Rangers even more beautifully if everyone else (bar perhaps Celtic) found themselves as hamstrung as they were.

If the clubs don't take the correct action - ie. hammer them until the pips squeak - their business reputations, along with that of the whole of Scottish football, will be in tatters.

[Drooper]

The bitterness!

You are just going to have to learn this the hard way.... when you are in debt its the money men who call the shots.

Ain't nothing bitter about it, my friend.

Schadenfreude, perhaps

Your club is fucked, and much as you'd love to drag the rest of us down with you, it isn't going to happen.

TTFN

[somner`s love child]

Couple of questions...........

Won`t the SPL decision be made on an anonymous basis so that the voting clubs don`t suffer `undue` pressure or be subject to backlash?

Who paid for the overnight stay at the hotel for the St Johnstone game? Surely even Haudit and Daudit would`nt sign off on that piece of Babylonian extravegance

[Guest Kincardine]

However our lowest income over the past 5 years has been £40M. Even if that drops to, say, £30M next season the loss of Sky money from going from 1st to 6th is about 5% of turnover.

Remembering Rangers pre-souness when you were winning nothing, do you think you'll keep filling Ibrox every week at increased prices with nothing to play for?

[/b]

I said that our lowest recent turnover has been £40M. I said that that may drop to £30M next season. I didn't say I expect us to fill Ibrox.

Learn to fucking read.

[Jim Leighton]

£2,000,000 a month?

So how many players are registered for Rangers?

TWO MILLION POUNDS A MONTH????????

Now Maths is not my strongest subject, ( neither is English, got that in first )

2,000,000 / say 30 players. =. £66,667 a month!!! AVERAGE!!!!!!

Yea, right.

You have 70 or so players getting a wage. Some will not be on mega salaries, but it takes the average down to 28k a month or 7k a week.

While Maths and English are taxing for you, you also are not especially strong in knowledge of your own club.

Edited May 15, 2012 by Jim Leighton

[)typically]

Couple of questions...........

Won`t the SPL decision be made on an anonymous basis so that the voting clubs don`t suffer `undue` pressure or be subject to backlash?

Who paid for the overnight stay at the hotel for the St Johnstone game? Surely even Haudit and Daudit would`nt sign off on that piece of Babylonian extravegance

1. I think it will be but it could be interesting if one or two of the dissenters talk to the press

2. Its probably a trivial expense in relation to their other costs. Lets face it D&P have been staying in hotels for 3 months now and I bet its not a Travelodge.

[wunfellaff]

£2,000,000 a month?

So how many players are registered for Rangers?

TWO MILLION POUNDS A MONTH????????

Now Maths is not my strongest subject, ( neither is English, got that in first )

2,000,000 / say 30 players. =. £66,667 a month!!! AVERAGE!!!!!!

Yea, right.

Not 'exactly' what your after but from 2010/11

Net operating expenses increased by GBP3.6m to GBP47.5m reflecting increased salary levels, higher European fixture costs and operational cost increases across the business.

This obviously is what they owned up to, other contracts might need to be taken into account

[thenolly]

£2,000,000 a month?

So how many players are registered for Rangers?

TWO MILLION POUNDS A MONTH????????

Now Maths is not my strongest subject, ( neither is English, got that in first )

2,000,000 / say 30 players. =. £66,667 a month!!! AVERAGE!!!!!!

Yea, right.

Rangers have 61 players registered for them (29 1st team & 32 Reserves &U19's) Plus 11 Back room staff

The 1st team will be on at least £20k a week (£80K a month)

The pay defferel of up to 75% of the wages was stated by Duff & Phelps to be saving the club over £1,000,000 a month (I think the figure was £1,300,000)

Now although the players have a basic wage (or 2 under the EBT), they are also likely to get appearance money, goal and win bonuses on top of it

Edited May 15, 2012 by thenolly

[WaffenThinMint]

[)typically]

Rangers total staffing costs in 2010 were £28 million, so £2milion a month for the playing staff would seem to be about right.

[Supras]

The real costs are of increased cost in raising debts, the anticipation that some clubs will need to be paying for services before they are received or at least put down a big deposit and the probability that the value of their playing assets will all fall as clubs simultaneously try to reduce wage bills and liquefy assets. There is a specific name for it when a highly leveraged market simultaneously attempts to liquefy assets and deleverage: Minsky moment. And trust me when you get a deflationary event kicking off, its gutwrenchingly difficult to stop. So your costs will be going up, income coming down, assets devaluing and will need more operating cash to maintain business operations. Highly leveraged clubs like say.... Hearts... may find no willing sources to roll over their existing commercial paper (or what ever the debt structure of the club is).

The credit risks are two fold. Firstly for each club in a deflationary market with shrinking revenue streams the risks of not being able to meet existing debt and less so new debt will make the debt riskier and the yeilds you are being asked for be going towards junk levels. And the second risk is AN Other club goes pop as the season goes on and this causes a serious blow to your (and the rest of the leagues) revenue, the potential of someone blowing up so bad they cannot fulfill fixtures is there. So there exists an inherent risk of chainreacting bankruptcies.

You really think your club chairmen are all thick? You really think they dont know how pissed you will all be? You really think its for a few bob TV money all this pish and bother is over?

Scottish football is a highly leveraged market with the risk of a significant part of its income stream ceasing to exist in an unstructured fashion. Any club with a reasonable debt portfolio will look like Greece or worse to people who lend the money. Ive said this all before.

But no the little villagers cant listen. Too many big words and not enough FTOF in my posts.

The down side risks are not 'a few less quid'. You will be trying to sell in a market already saturated by the Allan McGregors, Steve Naismiths and Sonny Alukos going for a song while every other club is trying to cut wage bills. You will be giving players away.

\

Good luck with it though. What have Rangers to loose? A couple of years in the lower divisions then up relatively debt free.

I'm sorry - I tried so hard to not respond to this.

Firstly, you are making the assumption that SPL clubs have high leverage - and stay with me, cause here's where you argument falls down - they don't! Hearts certainly do, Kilmarnock may well do, but for most of the clubs it is negligible. For St. Mirren for example our short term debt will be small and we have no liquidity problems. And again, you assume our assets are tied up in our playing staff. And again, they aren't really. St. Mirren asset proportion is in our fully owned stadium and training ground, given short term contracts most players in the SPL aren't worth very much. SPL clubs do not rely on players for assets. So it's hardly a Minsky moment if it's not a highly leveraged market and most assets are not devaluing.

Costs will certainly not go up if the wage bill is reduced, wages are by far the biggest expenditure of clubs and utterly dwarf short term credit payments. I mean, FFS, surely you know that? Similarly, income, as has been widely discussed, isn't falling by catastrophic amounts. St. Mirren easily, easily, survived in the first and we could more than easily survive without Rangers (which, however you look at it, is no where near as bad as the first).

You clearly know what you are talking about, you live in London, why aren't you buying Rangers? However, you've made two erroneous assumptions about the extent of leverage and the distribution of assets making your point, erm, shit, for everyone apart from Hearts and maybe Kilmarnock.

And with Hearts Vlad might bail them out again, as he has done before. Or they may become shit and uncompetitive and get relegated. Fine, I don't really like Hearts.

Any SPL club selling players to balance the books will not be trading in the same market as the clubs who are after the players you have mentioned. Outside of Celtic and Rangers, very few SPL players go for top dollar, only Hearts and Dundee Utd have brought in anything that can be considered a good fee for a player they were selling down south. Most players leaving for England will continue to be picked up by Championship and League 1 clubs for relatively modest fees. Rangers going bust would have little impact in that respect.

Also, it is extremely difficult to put an accurate figure on how many fans will stop attending games if a Newco is voted straight back in. Those that do leave are highly unlikely to come back, they would be money lost to the game permanently. If Rangers are relegated to the 3rd, or have to start again, you are looking at a 3-5 year drop in TV income, which might be difficult but should not be impossible to deal with. Losing a few thousand fans a week permanently would be far likelier to kill a club than losing TV money.

I do agree that the banks will have a major say in what happens, as they will want to ensure their debts are as secure as possible, but you might find they take a longer term view at getting the cash back, rather than forcing several clubs into admin or liquidation which could see a complete collapse and very little returned.

This is also none sense. If you currently follow Scottish football and try to leave because of a newco Rangers the chances of you coming back are very high.

[wunfellaff]

I said that our lowest recent turnover has been £40M. I said that that may drop to £30M next season. I didn't say I expect us to fill Ibrox.

Learn to fucking read.

From the same 2010/11 accounts I referred to a post or so ago....

£40m? ahem...

* Turnover at GBP57.2m for 2010/11 was an overall increase of GBP0.9m over the previous year

[thenolly]

Rangers total staffing costs in 2010 were £28 million, so £2milion a month for the playing staff would seem to be about right.

Thank you

[keeps01]

1337103931[/url]' post='6240148']

Rangers have 61 players registered for them (29 1st team & 32 Reserves &U19's) Plus 11 Back room staff

The 1st team will be on at least £20k a week (£80K a month)

The pay defferel of up to 75% of the wages was stated by Duff & Phelps to be saving the club over £1,000,000 a month (I think the figure was £1,300,000)

Now although the players have a basic wage (or 2 under the EBT), they are also likely to get appearance money, goal and win bonuses on top of it

Wow, just f*^king

Wow.

[greyman]

Anyone else wondering what the response was when traynor asked how many fans were waiting to see if the creamies were getting into the league before renewing their tickets? He just seemed to say 'there you go'. Listening on radio your pretty fucke to know the response although I can guess as the jambos in the audience agreed with what Petrie had said.

[Guest Kincardine]

From the same 2010/11 accounts I referred to a post or so ago....

£40m? ahem...

In our accounts posted in 2009 we had a turnover of £40M. This is our lowest recent revenue. I don't see why you see this as being at all contentious.

[aldo_j]

The current deal is worth £65,000,000 a year. It goes up to £80,000,000 next season.

Eh, naw it isn't! It doesn't even clear £20m a season, I think it works out at £15m a season.

If it was that much then Imrie wouldn't have been the only signing of the transfer window that money changed hands!!

[GirondistNYC]

1337102924[/url]' post='6240073']

The bitterness!

You are just going to have to learn this the hard way.... when you are in debt its the money men who call the shots.

I love the fact that you are so wedded to your finance mindset that you think the likes of St. Johnstone have their own dedicated CP program. Aye, how's the money market portfolio looking this week? Well, we should be good on the broad basket of repos, the Munis and the GE Capital Paper, but I'm seriously worried about the basis risk on the St. Johnstone 30 day rollover - the new striker combination looked good in the pre-season and the yield is gonna go to shit.

You're substantive point ignores the fact that regular finance avenues are not exactly clamoring to fund Scottish football and a lot of the conventional finance is old fashioned bank loans and a/r finance rather than tradeable securities which will death spiral on each rollover and regular issuance like Greek debt. And ignores the fact that bank exposure to diddy teams is a rounding error compared to heir overall debt portfolio. Keeping an existing couple of million quid overdraft on a couple of clubs open provides a minor public image community relationship bonus. Cf, Rangers, the - Murray Years / Bank of Scotland / Ludicrous Exposure.

I don't disagree that clubs will face tougher terms on debt and trade credit going forward though and I think some people are ignoring this. HOWEVER 1) this will occur whether Rangers goes to the SPL, the 3rd, hell or the Connaught regional league 2) this will continue unless there is a chance to break out of the current system, 3) this is all the fault of Rangers, who have just given the world an extensive decade long course in why you should not give money to Scottish football clubs and 4) it will get worse, not better, if Rangers survive in the SPL.

It's a bit rich talking about how bad the other teams will have it when you're gone in these terms. It's like the gangster who introduced heroin to the neighborhood laughing on his way to court how people won't be able to handle the petty crime from junkies without him around.

(edited because I can't format)

Edited May 15, 2012 by GirondistNYC