Follow Follow Rangers. Season 2023/24

[8MileBU]

1 hour ago, IrishBhoy said:

Late to the party but only heard yesterday morning from a work colleague that Jones and Edmondson got 7 game bans for the Covid breach  

Not got any love at all for Rangers but that is incredibly harsh imo. Infact it’s so harsh that it plays straight into the hands of Rangers fans who believe there’s some Peter Lawwell and SFA conspiracy against them. Have the rules around punishment for Covid breaches changed since Bolingoli and the Aberdeen players got caught out? Because I would say both of those cases deserved a harsher punishment than the Rangers players got. Jones has had a terrible time at Rangers and has given them the perfect reason to punt him. Edmondson looked average when I seen him last season but he’s still a young guy and could improve. 

I’m in 2 minds with this. Bolingoli and the Aberdeen guys punishment seems pretty lenient in hindsight but served as a lesson and warning to professional footballers that any more f**k ups wouldn’t be tolerated. Jones and Edmundson didn’t learn a lesson or heed the warning and effectively chose to f**k up of their own free will. Pair of stupid c***s and their punishment is thoroughly merited. 

The only bit I disagree with above is that Edmundson looked average. IMO the boy was unlucky not to nail down a starting place last season and impressed any time he played. 

[IrishBhoy]

Just now, 8MileBU said:

I’m in 2 minds with this. Bolingoli and the Aberdeen guys punishment seems pretty lenient in hindsight but served as a lesson and warning to professional footballers that any more f**k ups wouldn’t be tolerated. Jones and Edmundson didn’t learn a lesson or heed the warning and effectively chose to f**k up of their own free will. Pair of stupid c***s and their punishment is thoroughly merited. 

The only bit I disagree with above is that Edmundson looked average. IMO the boy was unlucky not to nail down a starting place last season and impressed any time he played. 

To be fair I’ve not seen enough of the guy, and a few of my Rangers supporting pals spoke quite highly of him when he played last year. 
 

Bolingoli and the Aberdeen players didn’t actually get punished in any way tbh, certainly not anything like a 7 game ban. I would say jumping on a plane to go to another country at a time when football had just restarted should be looked on much more harshly than the Rangers players, who’s breach occurred at a time when restrictions were being eased in Scotland. 

[G51]

2 hours ago, Hauzen said:

That's some interesting selective reasoning. If you just count goalkeeper wages then it's even better.

Long live the Iraqi Information Minister!

First team wages to turnover ratio is a common benchmark for football finances. I thought that was pretty widely known.

[RandomGuy.]

15 minutes ago, G51 said:

First team wages to turnover ratio is a common benchmark for football finances. I thought that was pretty widely known.

Apart from, you know, the guy who is pretty much the benchmark for football finances.

Rangers fans still burying their heads in the sand about how poorly their club is run financially, despite watching their club die then spend a decade without a trophy, is something else.

You do all realise that £80m+ losses accrued over a decade isn't simply vanishing once you make the CL once/sell a couple of players?

Its madness.

[G51]

1 minute ago, RandomGuy. said:

Apart from, you know, the guy who is pretty much the benchmark for football finances.

Rangers fans still burying their heads in the sand about how poorly their club is run financially, despite watching their club die then spend a decade without a trophy, is something else.

You do all realise that £80m+ losses accrued over a decade isn't simply vanishing once you make the CL once/sell a couple of players?

Its madness.

None of what I said contradicted anything Kieran Maguire said. First team wages to turnover, along with gross wages to turnover, are common benchmarks for football finance.

Its also hard to get very upset about losses when the actual stated business plan is “incur accounting losses by accelerating investment in the playing squad and infrastructure”. They’ve told us that this is what we’re going to do in every set of accounts since 2015/16, and they’ve told us they’ll cover the shortfall. 
 

Of course, what you failed to pick up is that by doing this, we’ve bridged the revenue gap to Celtic and that very clearly, selling a player would have wiped out that loss completely. If Celtic hadn’t sold Tierney, they’d have been looking at a €24m loss. The difference between the financial models are that we’re still investing and we have shareholders willing to fund that through their personal funds. It’s a world away from the Murray or post-Murray era and anyone who knows anything about it can see that.

[the snudge]

Do they still owe money to Ashley and is that factored in to the loss?

[RandomGuy.]

3 minutes ago, G51 said:

It’s a world away from the Murray or post-Murray era and anyone who knows anything about it can see that.

Its not. You're pumping money into the club in the hope that, one magical day, European/transfer money will come along and make it all sustainable.

Its not a "business model" based in reality.

[DMCs]

10 hours ago, G51 said:

First team wages, to be clear. As detailed on Page 12.

In terms of this it would be interesting if the % of our total wages that is first team players is abnormal compared to other clubs of our standard or indeed in the league. Are we putting a much greater proportion into the first team? 

Seems like it could be case in terms of comparing us to Celtic. I imagine Aberdeen as well as they will be paying their manager more as a % of total revenue while Celtic will be doing the same with Lawwell.

[gannonball]

3 minutes ago, G51 said:

None of what I said contradicted anything Kieran Maguire said. First team wages to turnover, along with gross wages to turnover, are common benchmarks for football finance.

Its also hard to get very upset about losses when the actual stated business plan is “incur accounting losses by accelerating investment in the playing squad and infrastructure”. They’ve told us that this is what we’re going to do in every set of accounts since 2015/16, and they’ve told us they’ll cover the shortfall. 
 

Of course, what you failed to pick up is that by doing this, we’ve bridged the revenue gap to Celtic and that very clearly, selling a player would have wiped out that loss completely. If Celtic hadn’t sold Tierney, they’d have been looking at a €24m loss. The difference between the financial models are that we’re still investing and we have shareholders willing to fund that through their personal funds. It’s a world away from the Murray or post-Murray era and anyone who knows anything about it can see that.

Not really, we wouldn’t have had made as big an outlay on players. Our player trading is a significant part of our profits but we have managed to work it well for years now. We could sell Eddie/Ajer next summer, get a few recruits and still make decent profit. 

[G51]

3 minutes ago, RandomGuy. said:

Its not. You're pumping money into the club in the hope that, one magical day, European/transfer money will come along and make it all sustainable.

Its not a "business model" based in reality.

The clear difference is that Murray did this through loans from HBOS to MIH that had to be repaid. That’s how we ended up with the bank running the club after the Great Recession.

However now the shareholders are personally providing these loans and have committed to converting them to equity, effectively writing off the debt. Those loans will never be repaid, and everyone is happy with that.
 

Presumably since you’re so concerned and it’s all obviously such a sham, you’ll be able to tell me what the principal risks are from this strategy? 

[G51]

5 minutes ago, gannonball said:

Not really, we wouldn’t have had made as big an outlay on players. Our player trading is a significant part of our profits but we have managed to work it well for years now. We could sell Eddie/Ajer next summer, get a few recruits and still make decent profit. 

That’s fair, it wouldn’t have been €24m. But it would clearly have been a loss. Hard to know what size it would have been.

[AJF]

25 minutes ago, RandomGuy. said:

Apart from, you know, the guy who is pretty much the benchmark for football finances.

Rangers fans still burying their heads in the sand about how poorly their club is run financially, despite watching their club die then spend a decade without a trophy, is something else.

You do all realise that £80m+ losses accrued over a decade isn't simply vanishing once you make the CL once/sell a couple of players?

Its madness.

I think most Rangers fans appreciate that running at a loss each year is unsustainable. There’s nobody saying it is so I’m not sure I agree with this statement.

What most are saying, is that as long as we have a board of directors and investors willing to cover any shortfall (which they have guaranteed) then there is no short term danger.

Rangers have over-invested year upon year which Dave King said we would until we became competitive again. I would fully expect over the next 2-3 years the Rangers business model will “normalise” in the sense it will mirror Celtic’s policy of selling assets to cover any shortfall. Now that we have increased our revenue streams through the over-investment, this is a lot more achievable.

[DukDukGoose]

2 hours ago, 8MileBU said:

I’m in 2 minds with this. Bolingoli and the Aberdeen guys punishment seems pretty lenient in hindsight but served as a lesson and warning to professional footballers that any more f**k ups wouldn’t be tolerated. Jones and Edmundson didn’t learn a lesson or heed the warning and effectively chose to f**k up of their own free will. Pair of stupid c***s and their punishment is thoroughly merited. 

The only bit I disagree with above is that Edmundson looked average. IMO the boy was unlucky not to nail down a starting place last season and impressed any time he played. 

Hearts in the cup?

I've not been impressed with him at all.

[bennett]

An over excited random guy claiming that we're burying our heads in the sand is way off the mark. The general opinion is that we can't keep sustaining these losses, especially in the current circumstances and will need to sell a few players. 

Not taking £16m from Lille was a mistake and would have balanced the books. 

 

[bennett]

3 minutes ago, Merkland Red said:

Hearts in the cup?

I've not been impressed with him at all.

Our back two have been chopped and changed so often it can be hard for  players to make their mark. He's raw and will make errors but after his recent shenanigans he's now 5th choice centre half and I can't see him coming back from this.

 

[DukDukGoose]

4 minutes ago, bennett said:

Our back two have been chopped and changed so often it can be hard for  players to make their mark. He's raw and will make errors but after his recent shenanigans he's now 5th choice centre half and I can't see him coming back from this.

 

For the money spent you could have picked up one the centre halves at domestic level. The likes of Halkett.

[G51]

Edmundson has the tools, he just needs experience so he can put them all together. He's tall, he's broad and he has a good range of passing. His ceiling is much higher than someone like Halkett.

If that boy gets 50 games somewhere under a good coach it'll be the making of him.

[DukDukGoose]

29 minutes ago, G51 said:

Edmundson has the tools, he just needs experience so he can put them all together. He's tall, he's broad and he has a good range of passing. His ceiling is much higher than someone like Halkett.

If that boy gets 50 games somewhere under a good coach it'll be the making of him.

You need to lay off the kool aid.

[G51]

1 minute ago, Merkland Red said:

You need to lay off the kool aid.

I don't think it's a particularly outrageous suggestion tbh. Craig Halkett is not a high bar to clear, especially given he's now 25 and has played something like 150 first team games.

[RandomGuy.]

6 minutes ago, G51 said:

I don't think it's a particularly outrageous suggestion tbh. Craig Halkett is not a high bar to clear, especially given he's now 25 and has played something like 150 first team games.

Halkett is shite and made to look better than he was due to Livingston.

He had a whole team around him built to defend, while he was giving the priority in terms of playing the ball forward from the back. So he comes out looking like a defensively sound ball playing CB.