Accounts out this morning

[theiconicman 2,978]

The answer is probably none. Capital expenditure is not an operating cost & doesn't show in your profit/loss at all. It increases your assets in the balance sheet.

But it does erode cash which is the other figure that most people latch onto.

The results are worse than I thought they were going to be, I was aiming for around 10-11m loss. I think what is abundantly clear is that prices will need to hike (and should probably have gone up this year) and that is a worry in terms of how our support will react to that.

[Redsox1 1,361]

Firstly Green did say he would put the prices up but ended up not doing it.can`t remember if he was kicked out by then or not. I don`t think he could have because of the dross the team had shown us for most of the season. If Ally can keep the team firing for the majority of the season and actually entertain the fans then we will be able to put the prices up. As for the bonuses they are already being addressed. Watch the BS interview on Rangers TV and he tells you it straight. There will be NO bonuses for directors etc linked to team being promoted. There will be bonuses linked to performances I`d expect.

[SteveJ 743]

Here's another one who survives on here against all the odds

swally, wind yer neck in eh? You act like you are god's gift and if your opinion is not accepted by anyone, then they must suffer. I have agreed with you and disagreed with you but never found you open to debate - the meaning of which you can work out for yourself, as can others.

I 'survive' on here because I have an opinion and am happy to debate with others who wish to. I don't spout personal abuse at members, which is what should be punished on a forum and not whether the member agrees with a certain member or group of members.

[SteveJ 743]

its not really, 2mill+ per month next years accounts will show wildly different running costs and incomes

on another note, just listening to BS there regarding the accounts, we barely earned a penny last season in retail because JJB went tits up, if we earn anywhere near the JJB money per year again with Sports Direct that another 3mill extra we can look at by next years accounts

thought BS spoke very well, very clear and concise explanations

Can I ask how do you work this out? Yes, there will be some extra income and we all knew that the JJB collapse meant we were getting no money, but the outgoings are not really going to get any better.

We had an £18M bill for 13 months of staffing at Ibrox and the wages reduced by the removal of Boca and co will be the wages being used for the 8 players we brought in. Coisty says he is going to tale a pay cut, so we may shave off a couple of hundred thousand, but who else has offered to reduce their wage?

So if we have a £16.6M staff bill for the coming financial year, it is costing us £1.4M per month on staff salaries alone. Irrespective of how much we bring in, I can see Ibrox and Auchenhowie costs bringing us closer to the £2M per month.

I am not saying it is doom and gloom, as we are being promised new revenue streams. I am just worried that our club can accept such high outgoings, when we should be strolling through the leagues and storing cash for our top title bid. If we don't save for that day, now, we could be in the shit when it comes.

[Jimfanciesthedude 24,507]

I am not saying it is doom and gloom, as we are being promised new revenue streams. I am just worried that our club can accept such high outgoings, when we should be strolling through the leagues and storing cash for our top title bid. If we don't save for that day, now, we could be in the shit when it comes.

stockbridge said last night that the reason we are continuing to spend money off the park like an top division club is because we ARE a top division club and if we were to lay off numerous people in numerous departments, we'd need to pay redundancy money, then in less than 2 years we will need to recruit all these positions again and spend money training up the people and integrating them into the club

clearly the board thinks that keeping these experienced people the now means less of an issue when we return to the top

[SteveJ 743]

stockbridge said last night that the reason we are continuing to spend money off the park like an top division club is because we ARE a top division club and if we were to lay off numerous people in numerous departments, we'd need to pay redundancy money, then in less than 2 years we will need to recruit all these positions again and spend money training up the people and integrating them into the club

clearly the board thinks that keeping these experienced people the now means less of an issue when we return to the top

Am I wrong in thinking that if we are back to a full top flight strength in terms of backroom staff, we have recruited them when Rangers assets were brought over to our current owners? I seem to remember a lot of people being paid off under administration, so we must have filled those posts once we were out of the shit. If so, then BS's version of events does not add up.

[Don81 2,837]

Am I wrong in thinking that if we are back to a full top flight strength in terms of backroom staff, we have recruited them when Rangers assets were brought over to our current owners? I seem to remember a lot of people being paid off under administration, so we must have filled those posts once we were out of the shit. If so, then BS's version of events does not add up.

We went out of our way not to lay off the normal staff I'm sure.

[Jimfanciesthedude 24,507]

Am I wrong in thinking that if we are back to a full top flight strength in terms of backroom staff, we have recruited them when Rangers assets were brought over to our current owners? I seem to remember a lot of people being paid off under administration, so we must have filled those posts once we were out of the shit. If so, then BS's version of events does not add up.

we didnt lay off anyone during administration

[Carsons Dog 9,878]

we didnt lay off anyone during administration

No not one

[Jimfanciesthedude 24,507]

No not one

and they'll never shall be one

[gogzy 31,195]

and they'll never shall be one

off topic. But i remember when i was a boy, my grandad used to sing the words....

Oh theres not a hair on a baldy headed nun. No not one and there never shall be one.

Not sure if thats the old words or just my grandads version.

[SteveJ 743]

we didnt lay off anyone during administration

Yes, it was the current board that made 15 non-staff redundancies, so apologies.

Rangers were reported as having 177 full-time staff as of February 2012. in June 2012, 10 players refused to move their contracts, meaning we were down to 167.

So the current board took a full-time staff level of 167 from the top flight business, then reduced it by 15 non-playing staff.

Seven players left last season and six came in.

Seven players left during the close season and seven came in.

The figures would imply that the full-time staff inherited from oldco should be 166, so why are we now reporting 196 full-time? We made 15 redundant and hired 30 more?

[gogzy 31,195]

146 non playing staff was the number I read steve.

[legalbeagle 3,734]

we didnt lay off anyone during administration

Gordon Smith and Ali Russell.

[SteveJ 743]

146 non playing staff was the number I read steve.

Yes.....

146 non-playing staff today, as opposed to 110 non-playing staff in Feb 2012.

50 playing staff today, as opposed to 67 playing staff in Feb 2012.

[Getstiffed 8,863]

stockbridge said last night that the reason we are continuing to spend money off the park like an top division club is because we ARE a top division club and if we were to lay off numerous people in numerous departments, we'd need to pay redundancy money, then in less than 2 years we will need to recruit all these positions again and spend money training up the people and integrating them into the club

clearly the board thinks that keeping these experienced people the now means less of an issue when we return to the top

Lesser of 2 evils kind of thing.

[Jimfanciesthedude 24,507]

Yes, it was the current board that made 15 non-staff redundancies, so apologies.

Rangers were reported as having 177 full-time staff as of February 2012. in June 2012, 10 players refused to move their contracts, meaning we were down to 167.

So the current board took a full-time staff level of 167 from the top flight business, then reduced it by 15 non-playing staff.

Seven players left last season and six came in.

Seven players left during the close season and seven came in.

The figures would imply that the full-time staff inherited from oldco should be 166, so why are we now reporting 196 full-time? We made 15 redundant and hired 30 more?

maybe by purchasing the car park and edminston house their employees became ours?