[Loss of Hutton, Burkes downfall?]

Burke regained his place in the team after Hutton was away. he played well for a few weeks, but his performance in the CIS final was shocking, and apparently it was similar against Thistle. His lack of consistency has nothing to do with Hutton leaving.

[£700m plans on schedule]

It will be interesting to find out more about the issue actually....

How much money did we put up to finance our participation?

How do we make money (sponsorship, TV, retail etc)?

Is it merely for exposure purposed? If so how does this offset expenditure?

Who is responsible for our participation?

"Participating football clubs pay nothing to take part in Superleague Formula. In fact, clubs will actually receive a share of total revenues (plus approximately half of the car sponsorship), creating several millions of dollars every year in extra revenue."

Although they are paying nothing to take part, I believe that there will still be the costs of the team, although much of the sales, marketing and technology work will be handled centrally by the league, thus affording a considerable cost-savings to the teams.

There is a million euros prize purse per race, although I'm not aware of how this is shared between the teams.

Bain possibly drove this project (if you'll excuse the pun) but Murray would have had to have given the OK on it.

[About the announcement]

Well if the directors all work for nothing then that's amazing.

If they all put in money to the club and not expect anything back then that is philanthropy at its best.

I think you'll find that all the Directors will take a dividend at year end even if they don't take a "wage" as we know it to be out during the year.

Not only would it be their "salary" per se but it would reduce the tax cost payable by the club if we were ever to make a profit.

Not all directors work for the club. Those that do get paid a wage - as Bain et al do. Most of our directors own very few shares in the grand scheme of things when you consider MIH's 91.8% holding.

Murray, IIRC, does not take a wage or a dividend from the club (last dividend was paid out in the 1980s I think).

Share Dividends and Dividends are two totally separate entities.

I don't know the ins and outs of the director dividends and who gets what at Rangers. But I just know that it would be extremely unusual for Directors NOT to be paid yearly dividends (NOT SHARE DIVIDENDS) relating to the success of the finances.

Not sure what you are talking about. None of the directors receive any sort of dividend.

Do you mean bonuses rather than dividends?

Firstly Murray does not take any pay as Frankie has already said.

Directors last year received a total of £502K in salaries. Bain got £311K and I believe that there were 2 other directors (one being Donald McIntyre, the financial director) making up the balance. Bain certainly receivs a bonus which is apparently performance related. Nothing wrong with that per se, although there may be some issues with the way that his bonus is structured.

[About the announcement]

I may be misunderstanding it badly, and I will retract if so, but...

Is it just me or is the ticket free deal a disgraceful display of elitism on at least 2 fronts?

1: It's a club, or chairman, showing off to the rest of the world by buying all the tickets for a high profile European game. 'Look at us, we can buy all the tickets, we're so cool'. Just because it's unprecedented doesn't make it a good thing.

2: More importantly, this is preventing any bluenose who hasn't been away in Europe before from going to this game. Only those who have shown 'loyalty' are allowed to go. Exactly who the f*ck does the club think it is to go around deciding who is 'allowed' to go? That's actually quite despicable. You can reward your most committed fans if you so wish, but this is punishing the rest.

There is also the crucial point that while the away leg is free, the home leg has been vastly increased in price, meaning that rather than rewarding fans, they're being punished as a whole because this overall venture is making the club PROFIT, not costing them anything.

I may have misconstrued the whole thing, but if I'm right, this has left a sour taste in my mouth.

I don't agree with your points 1 and 2, but the point after that about the increase in price, and the fact that it is the home supporters that are paying for the away supporters tickets is the relevant one.

[£700m plans on schedule]

To save you some time:

Rangers 2001 accounts

Thanks mate. I started reading the opening Chairmans statement and realised what a poor Chairman Murray actually is. Here is what he hits us with in 2001:

"I am confident that we are in good shape, on and off the park, meet the challenges of the future and to ensure the continuous success of the Club"

Really Muzza? Quite the financial forecaster!

I need to sleep that shock off.

True. Even when the financial position was looking dire and it was raised at an AGM the shareholders were reassured that everything was OK. It then proceeded to get worse....much worse. His financial mismanagement was astonishing and that's why this talk of a big warchest for Walter and a massive stadium redevelopment has me concerned. Can he be trusted from a financial persepective this time?

[£700m plans on schedule]

did we get a grant from glasgow council to help build murray park?

No, I don't believe so.

i think that we got some help but i might be wrong.

Dave King had put cash into the club, and we took out a bank loan, but I'm not aware of any other funding from a third party.

[£700m plans on schedule]

I'm pretty sure Murray Park is owned by another "company" with Rangers in the name. Almost convinced.

If you look in the accounts of Rangers Football Club plc in 2001 you will see Murray Park being added to fixed assets.

Will have a gander at them tomorrow if time allows.

I'll need to stop all rubbish recycling in Central Scotland though as I am sure they went in the bin with all the other guff Murray sends me.

or else you could look at them on the internet. It's really great, you know.

Again... if time allows as already stated.

To save you some time:

Rangers 2001 accounts

[£700m plans on schedule]

did we get a grant from glasgow council to help build murray park?

No, I don't believe so.

[£700m plans on schedule]

I'm pretty sure Murray Park is owned by another "company" with Rangers in the name. Almost convinced.

If you look in the accounts of Rangers Football Club plc in 2001 you will see Murray Park being added to fixed assets.

Will have a gander at them tomorrow if time allows.

I'll need to stop all rubbish recycling in Central Scotland though as I am sure they went in the bin with all the other guff Murray sends me.

or else you could look at them on the internet. It's really great, you know.

[£700m plans on schedule]

I'm pretty sure Murray Park is owned by another "company" with Rangers in the name. Almost convinced.

If you look in the accounts of Rangers Football Club plc in 2001 you will see Murray Park being added to fixed assets.

[£700m plans on schedule]

I have no knowledge of business myself

You're not the only one on this thread.

but doesn't the fact that Murray Park facilitates the production of youth players, such as Hutton, make it an asset?

Yes, and the fact that we could sell it and make money.

Why would we sell it?

Does it cost us money to run?

Liabilities are not bad things, they are neccesary.

But when one is left with nothing but liabilities as all the assets are sold, then they have a problem.

What would make us more money?

a) A club that owned the catering outlets (serving up to 50,000 people every other week), shops (serving the massive fan base we have), car park (£8 a car every other week with circa 500 car spaces)... and so on.

or

b) A club that owned nothing but the building it operates in

???

Then ask yourself if Murrays asset stripping has been to Raqngers' detriment.

Sorry, I'm not going to give any further basic book-keeping classes tonight. You obviously don't have a clue what you are talking about.

The issue of asset-stripping is another matter entirely, and if Murray took Murray Park from the club for £1m then it would be asset-stripping not liability stripping.

[£700m plans on schedule]

Murray Park is a property owned by Rangers fc PLC.

Are you sure about that J?

I hope you're correct.

Yes, mate. It's in the accounts, and also the RST did a check a couple of years ago.

....although that doesn't mean that Murray doesn't have his eyes on it.

[£700m plans on schedule]

Murray Park is a property owned by Rangers fc PLC.

Are you sure about that J?

I hope you're correct.

Yes, mate. It's in the accounts, and also the RST did a check a couple of years ago.

[£700m plans on schedule]

I have no knowledge of business myself

You're not the only one on this thread.

but doesn't the fact that Murray Park facilitates the production of youth players, such as Hutton, make it an asset?

Yes, and the fact that we could sell it and make money.

[£700m plans on schedule]

I have no knowledge of business myself

You're not the only one on this thread.

but doesn't the fact that Murray Park facilitates the production of youth players, such as Hutton, make it an asset?

Yes, and the fact that we could sell it and make money.

[£700m plans on schedule]

Tell me why a Training Ground is an asset to a club.

Someone spell it out.

Id hazard a guess at because it premises belonging to the club...it therefore has a sell on value...so its an asset.

Do the premises belong to The Club?

yes, they do.

[Those slating the announcement]

The constant sniping of Murray gets very tiresome.

Anyway, rant over, but some of the anti-Murray stuff is pathetic and embarrassing.

So some of it is therefore justified and should therefore not be described as tiresome.

[£700m plans on schedule]

Tell me why a Training Ground is an asset to a club.

Someone spell it out.

Definitions of asset on the Web:

Anything a person, company, or group owns or is owed, including money, investments and property.

In business and accounting an asset is any economic resource controlled by an entity as a result of past transactions or events and from which future economic benefits may be obtained. Examples include cash, equipment, buildings, and land.

It's really basic!

LOL so basic you cant explain it.

He did, mate. Reread his post carefully. The answer is in there.

[£700m plans on schedule]

Tell me why a Training Ground is an asset to a club.

Someone spell it out.

Definitions of asset on the Web:

Anything a person, company, or group owns or is owed, including money, investments and property.

In business and accounting an asset is any economic resource controlled by an entity as a result of past transactions or events and from which future economic benefits may be obtained. Examples include cash, equipment, buildings, and land.

It's really basic!

[£700m plans on schedule]

A training ground is NOT a financial asset, either. Not even if it's called Murray Park. It's a liability, get over it.

I'm sure Murray park is shown as an asset in the club's accounts....

:harhar: :harhar: :harhar: :harhar:

it would, would it not? ;-)

Not if it's a liability like you claim.

Tell me, wise one... why would a training ground be classed as an asset?

Err, because it is.

Suggested reading

[£700m plans on schedule]

A training ground is NOT a financial asset, either. Not even if it's called Murray Park. It's a liability, get over it.

I'm sure Murray park is shown as an asset in the club's accounts....

:harhar: :harhar: :harhar: :harhar:

it would, would it not? ;-)

Not if it's a liability like you claim.

[£700m plans on schedule]

Exactly. Murray sees Rangers Football Club as a way to filter new business into his PROFITABLE companies and not the OTHER WAY AROUND.

Pure and Simple.

He also filtered business into his unprofitable companies (eg Azure).

[£700m plans on schedule]

A training ground is NOT a financial asset, either. Not even if it's called Murray Park. It's a liability, get over it.

I'm sure Murray park is shown as an asset in the club's accounts....

[£700m plans on schedule]

Without evidence, how do you prove that he's exploited us to our detriment?

Is it impossible that both Rangers and his companies got mutually favourable deals?

It sounds like you guys are saying "Believe me! I may have no evidence but believe me. Even without evidence, it's obvious."

Also, do we not have healthy finances now?

There is no way to prove whether Murray has expoited us or not. I'm not aware of any tendering process that took place so therefore who nows. Likewise you can say he hasn't. What should have taken place was a visible tendering porcess and not have it that every contract possible went to one of his companies.

Our finances are OK, but no more than that, and that's largely due to the Hutton cash. I wouldn't describe them as healthy.

[Those slating the announcement]

Why ? What exactly were you expecting ?

If anyone got so caught up in the media hype since yesterday that they were expecting an announcement of monumental proportions.............then it's your own fault for allowing your own naievity to get the better of you !

There is nothing but positive news from this announcement, and it's a good piece of PR from the club.

Good news for season ticket holders.

Good news for families (family of 4 could save as much as around £186 next season, a very substantial saving).

Good news for those fantastic away fans that have travelled abroad all season.

Good news for everyone that the redevelopment plans are moving along nicely.

Good news for everyonoe that Walter has been promised a large transfer budget for next season.

I just think some people, unfairly, constantly have the knives out for Murray. Over his 20 year tenure, we've enjoyed outstanding success, seen some fantastic players, built a first class training facility and now have redevelopment plans underway.

We've had one dip in fortune in 20 years (imagine that, eh, anyone got a certain quote from Bill Struth ? ), and even during that period we still enjoyed two outstanding final day title wins and were the first Scottish side to reach the last 16 of the Champions League. I'm sure a few older Bears could tell us about darker days than that.

The constant sniping of Murray gets very tiresome. If people really feel that strongly about it, why don't they go and protest outside Ibrox and make their anti-Murray banners up ? Or do they only do that when we're losing like the last time ? Pathetic, but if a minority of fans are going to act like that, why not show a shred of integrity and stop jumping back on the bus every time we start winning again.

Anyway, rant over, but some of the anti-Murray stuff is pathetic and embarrassing. Unappreciative and spoiled would sum up a few fans who have had it damn good during Murray's time at the club. They think the sky will always be blue when Murray leaves..........although they can't even suggest who could take over........well we'll see about that. But I highly doubt we'll enjoy the same level of success under our next chairman. And I for one hope it's a long time before we find that out.

The people who think that Murray can do no wrong are as bad as the people that think he can do no right. Some of the pro-Murray stuff is also embarrassing.

Murray has done a lot of good for the club, but he has also been bad in a number of ways. The fact that he has not stood up for the support in any way. Even today he is quoted as saying "As far as the fans’ behaviour is concerned we’ve still got a bit to go".

We no longer own the Edmiston Club or the carpark. We ran away and resigned as Chairman when the going got tough and wouldn't even appear at the AGMs.

He is funding the purchase of the away tickets to SL by bumping up the home prices.

I'm sure that you can come up with lots of examples where he has done good for the club (bringing in the Enic and King cash), putting in £60m of his own cash etc (although most of that was to correct his financial mismanagement), but let's be objective about it.