Accounts out this morning

[surfsup2 1,535]

The results are not wonderful but did Green not say when he first came that it would take a few years to show any profit.

I do think the whole set up from top to bottom needs to be looked at and cost savings made.

They also need to bring inhouse PR and anything else they outsource to cut costs.

I don't think they need to spend in Jan unless they use money made from selling players.

It does not concern me about the players as this team are for the fight on the road back (to make sure we get there as quick as poss)

And means we only have to top up when we get there as they will be used to playing as a team.

[Carsons Dog 9,878]

The only downside about getting good news fom this is that the tarriers are going to turn the heat up on the complaints about the armed forces, even more.

Have they no games coming up?

[boss 1,941]

Many keep claiming in here that Minico have nothing to stand on because no money has been put in by them ... well, if we have paid the £6m back, then no money was put in by ANYBODY !!

There was £8m of new share capital in addition to the IPO. But McCollco don't want you to know that.

[Blueshoff 11,813]

Lest we forget - the reason we have reduced revenue - tv/sposnsorship etc. is due to the bitter ***** in Scottish football

Anger would be better aimed at them than amongst ourselves

[Fools Gold 488]

For the empty-headed fans (i.e me), all this accounts stuff is going way too deep.

So:

1) Are the accounts positive/negative as a whole?

2) Are the figures sufficient to keep the current boardroom?

And most importantly, is the overall picture for Rangers more Cheryl Cole or Susan Boyle?

[King Jela 20,361]

Have they no games coming up?

Does that ever usually make a difference ?

[Bluepeter9 5,167]

Firstly, we are not goign bust anytime soon.

We should make it through the year okay, but I dont think we will be close to breaking even.

We have a £14m operational hole to fill. We have £10m in the bank for the comng year, bringing that down to about £4m over last year to find. This can either be achieved through cost cutting, or through increased revenue, or both.

Say we plug this £4m gap, and add a further £4m through increased revenue, it will still leave us with a hole of £6m to plug in the 2014-2015 season.

Im sure we will be able to get further funding to fill this gap, but I would much prefer to have cut costs now and have us running on an even keel when we got back to the top division.

Break even - was an opinion ! ! We are and have reduced costs - we will increase revenue and we will have no ( or different) one off costs - but as I said it's an opinion

[Young Bob 1,360]

For the empty-headed fans (i.e me), all this accounts stuff is going way too deep.

So:

1) Are the accounts positive/negative as a whole?

2) Are the figures sufficient to keep the current boardroom?

And most importantly, is the overall picture for Rangers more Cheryl Cole or Susan Boyle?

Its dead simple. The answers depend on which forum you are reading.

[The Educator 1,572]

On initial reading the accounts are not as bad as many thought, however that doesn't make them particularly good either. What really stands out is that those in charge of getting sponsors into our club must do better to justify their wage and bonuses. If sponsorship drops you most certainly should not be due any bonus.

Things were always going to be hard on the way back to the top flight this has been made worse by the campaign of lies waged against the club by a number of journalists/broadcasters who have done their best to stop people signing or sponsoring the club. There will have to be a tightening of belts on the off field side of things, but this must also be balanced by gaining more sponsorship. As McCoist and his backroom staff have taken a reduction in their wages I would hope that those on the board would do the same and also wave their right to any bonus payments as a gesture to the fans who have supplied the bulk of the cash the club has had available and as an admission that they themselves must do better.

It is McCoist's job to put together a squad that will win games and ease our path to the next step of the ladder and more income from that. He has done his part it is now up to the board whoever they are to generate the income to back this up. On initial reading do these accounts merit a pass mark? In my opinion just about, they could have been worse, but also they could have been a lot better as well. Basically there is a lot of room for improvement by the people in charge of generating income for the club.

[Fools Gold 488]

Its dead simple. The answers depend on which forum you are reading.

That's my issue; I thought we'd perhaps come to a single conclusion.

Are things really as divisive as before?

[GOAT 30,449]

Sponsorships obviously dropped due to the fact we've no European football and don't play in the top league.

[Jimfanciesthedude 24,540]

What really stands out is that those in charge of getting sponsors into our club must do better to justify their wage and bonuses. If sponsorship drops you most certainly should not be due any bonus.

imran ahmed said he managed to negotiate 65million of revenues in the future for us

[Redsox1 1,361]

1) accounts positive with room for improvement.

2) figures are more than sufficient to keep the current boardroom.But as said before board still need to make some improvements.

The outlook is def more Cheryl Cole... Thanks god !

[boss 1,941]

You sure about that?

"http://www.frc.org.u...ng-concern.aspx"

It seems to be suggesting the auditors role should not extend beyond the period assessed by management, which should be no less than 12 months.

Can you please explain to me why this is not applicable in our case?

Direct from your link:

"When assessing whether the going concern assumption is appropriate, management takes into account all available information about the future, which is at least, but not limited to, twelve months from the balance sheet date. The degree of consideration depends on the facts in each case."

My emboldenment. This is no "12 month rule". If the board's 5 year plan (to which they refer in the accounts and therefore must be made available to the auditors) indicate that we will run out of money in a few years, that is absolutely relevant to the going concern consideration even when it's outside 12 months.

[OLE SUPER WILBERT 2,475]

Have you been sleeping for the last few years? Genuine question.

Dick.

[boss 1,941]

If you think it is possible this year, you have to be the most optimistic accountant I have ever heard of!

It would be possible IMO but only if we get offers in for players - say Wallace, Macleod, Law - that could just about see us break even. Unlikely perhaps.

[EatDolphins 5,355]

I'm in the same boat. The accounts are as clear as mud to me. It doesn't help when you have dozens people on here playing amateur accountant, trying to pick them apart and put their own slant in. I have 3 questions

How much money did we take in in total?

How much money did we spend in total?

What is our current balance?

[Fools Gold 488]

From what I've read so far, it looks more Cheryl.

Are the people who thought we'd be in the shit by Christmas still feel that way, or are they now at the very least , content?

[gandhisflip 5]

Don't understand the optimism guys when we have over £10m of staff costs not related to playing staff. Assuming Mccoist and his team are being paid (criminally) c.£2.2m thats best part of £7m being taken out of the club by the board/owners??? Am i missing something obvious?

[boss 1,941]

Dick.

Sorry, I should have used a smiley.

We spent £14m more than our income. Wages, including management team and directors, were too high and income streams were as low as they will ever be. We also have costs that won't recur and cost savings where we'll only see the full effect in this year.

[nacho_nacho_man 477]

On the whole, I think the accounts are probably par for the course.

A particular concern of mines would be the sugar coated use of first team wage : turnover ratio. On first impressions 42 to 43% doesn't sound too bad, however I'd have thought that total wages : turnover would have been a more relevant benchmark.

Considering total wages & salaries [15,855] : turnover [19,107], we're hitting 83% Unhealthy is probably an understatement.

[Redwhiteandblue 3,330]

I'm in the same boat. The accounts are as clear as mud to me. It doesn't help when you have dozens people on here playing amateur accountant, trying to pick them apart and put their own slant in. I have 3 questions

How much money did we take in in total?

How much money did we spend in total?

What is our current balance?

We had £11m in the bank and a loss of £14m at the end of June.

[gandhisflip 5]

Boss - this is where I'm confused. £17.8m of staff costs minus £7.8m of player costs = £10m on mgt and board. We know the mgt team are being paid way too much (c.£2.2m for the 3) but that leaves c.£7m going out via the board / owners???? For what??? Without these guys taking exorbitant bonuses and salaries the accounts would be ok - but they are. Why is everyone happy with this?

[OLE SUPER WILBERT 2,475]

Sorry, I should have used a smiley.

We spent £14m more than our income. Wages, including management team and directors, were too high and income streams were as low as they will ever be. We also have costs that won't recur and cost savings where we'll only see the full effect in this year.

Nah I know that we spent more than our income, I'm not that stupid

I meant how will we break even in a years time if we've lost that amount of money over the past year.

[Fools Gold 488]

I guess we have no way of finding what we spent between Jul-Sep then, until next years accounts?