Jump to content

So that's that done then is it?


TannochsideBear

Recommended Posts

The statement from the Chairman at the club AGM this morning, and posted in full on the boards, made it quite clear that he did not feel that supporter ownership, ala Barcelona, could work at Rangers due to the huge gap in the tv market, and the fact that the fans already pay enough for tickets, transport, strips, events etc, and to ask them to pay even more for a membership/ownership scheme will be too much.

What that says to me is that the Chairman does not believe that the income generated currently at the club is sufficient for the club to be progressive. The money we take in from season tickets, tv rights, European competitions, merchandise, publications and other avenues is not enough to put a competitive squad of players at a manager's disposal.

As he is party to the finances in much greater detail, and given his successful business background, I am in no position to argue the point with him on this.

Personally, I would have thought that we could be run on a self-sufficient basis, and in fact our previous chairman said this very thing a few years ago after nearly bankrupting us the first time this decade. However that is not the point I want to make.

If we are to accept the chairman's words in the positive light that they were I am sure intended, where does that leave the current workings of the RST and Assembly who are trying to piece together a workable model for supporter investment?

Does this mean that any new owner is only going to be viable if he commits a chunk of cash to the club not just once, but annually to keep us going, and that this cash cannot be in the form of loans or shares, as there will never be enough money to pay him back, given that we need this investment every year to compete?

And if so, how much does our current chairman think it would require as an investment annually to ensure that enough cash is in the club to enable it to finance itself properly without debt, and to progress matters as a winning evolving side?

My reading of the situation is that is must be a sizeable chunk of cash we are "short" every year, as a membership scheme of say 40,000 members paying £100 annually would be £4M per year, and if this is not going to be enough to fill the gap, then the gap must a chasm. And if it is such a gap, how can we expect to ask any one individual to pay such an amount just for the good of the club?

Something doesn't quite add up here. Either we can pay our way and make some funds available under the present model, or we need a cash injection each year of perhaps around £10M.

I have no idea what sort of membership/ownership model the RST/RSA are going to come up with, but it would seem to me that, putting the buying of the club aside for a moment, if there were to be a scheme where members pay a sum each year, say around £100, and for that cash get some small benefits on ticketing, merchandise and events, and the chance to vote on fans issues in a democratic OMOV way, I can see that being quite popular. Say a number equal to the current capacity take that membership option up, that would raise £5.2M per season of income to the club. Are we trying to say that sort of income would not be enough for a members owned club to be self-sufficient. Has Murray put in £5M net each year for the last 20 years? Would any potential buyers be willing to put in £5M net each year?

I have liked what I have heard from the new chairman so far in his short tenure, but his statement today has left me with more questions than answers.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The statement from the Chairman at the club AGM this morning, and posted in full on the boards, made it quite clear that he did not feel that supporter ownership, ala Barcelona, could work at Rangers due to the huge gap in the tv market, and the fact that the fans already pay enough for tickets, transport, strips, events etc, and to ask them to pay even more for a membership/ownership scheme will be too much.

What that says to me is that the Chairman does not believe that the income generated currently at the club is sufficient for the club to be progressive. The money we take in from season tickets, tv rights, European competitions, merchandise, publications and other avenues is not enough to put a competitive squad of players at a manager's disposal.

As he is party to the finances in much greater detail, and given his successful business background, I am in no position to argue the point with him on this.

Personally, I would have thought that we could be run on a self-sufficient basis, and in fact our previous chairman said this very thing a few years ago after nearly bankrupting us the first time this decade. However that is not the point I want to make.

If we are to accept the chairman's words in the positive light that they were I am sure intended, where does that leave the current workings of the RST and Assembly who are trying to piece together a workable model for supporter investment?

Does this mean that any new owner is only going to be viable if he commits a chunk of cash to the club not just once, but annually to keep us going, and that this cash cannot be in the form of loans or shares, as there will never be enough money to pay him back, given that we need this investment every year to compete?

And if so, how much does our current chairman think it would require as an investment annually to ensure that enough cash is in the club to enable it to finance itself properly without debt, and to progress matters as a winning evolving side?

My reading of the situation is that is must be a sizeable chunk of cash we are "short" every year, as a membership scheme of say 40,000 members paying £100 annually would be £4M per year, and if this is not going to be enough to fill the gap, then the gap must a chasm. And if it is such a gap, how can we expect to ask any one individual to pay such an amount just for the good of the club?

Something doesn't quite add up here. Either we can pay our way and make some funds available under the present model, or we need a cash injection each year of perhaps around £10M.

I have no idea what sort of membership/ownership model the RST/RSA are going to come up with, but it would seem to me that, putting the buying of the club aside for a moment, if there were to be a scheme where members pay a sum each year, say around £100, and for that cash get some small benefits on ticketing, merchandise and events, and the chance to vote on fans issues in a democratic OMOV way, I can see that being quite popular. Say a number equal to the current capacity take that membership option up, that would raise £5.2M per season of income to the club. Are we trying to say that sort of income would not be enough for a members owned club to be self-sufficient. Has Murray put in £5M net each year for the last 20 years? Would any potential buyers be willing to put in £5M net each year?

I have liked what I have heard from the new chairman so far in his short tenure, but his statement today has left me with more questions than answers.

I really enjoyed ALL the statements, seems as though (as a few stated), 99% of the crap in the papers was just that, crap! When will people learn?

In regard to the funding bit highlighted, He is stating we need to look at equity funding rather than "loans". I believe the difference will be big, because, you dont pay interest on equity funding, so, there must be currently a large percentage of our outgoings being spent on debt interest, if you remove that, you remove a large chunk of operating expenditure, therefore, will not need the excess you mention each year, and, it renders the last line about buyers putting money in each year as redundant (tu)

Link to post
Share on other sites

I really enjoyed ALL the statements, seems as though (as a few stated), 99% of the crap in the papers was just that, crap! When will people learn?

In regard to the funding bit highlighted, He is stating we need to look at equity funding rather than "loans". I believe the difference will be big, because, you dont pay interest on equity funding, so, there must be currently a large percentage of our outgoings being spent on debt interest, if you remove that, you remove a large chunk of operating expenditure, therefore, will not need the excess you mention each year, and, it renders the last line about buyers putting money in each year as redundant (tu)

I am sure you will have people telling you are naïve for believing the chairman of the club instead of people with sources and these famous "insiders" that seem to have been quoted for months now....

Some people simply don’t want to believe the situation isn’t as bad as certain groups claim it is…

Link to post
Share on other sites

I really enjoyed ALL the statements, seems as though (as a few stated), 99% of the crap in the papers was just that, crap! When will people learn?

In regard to the funding bit highlighted, He is stating we need to look at equity funding rather than "loans". I believe the difference will be big, because, you dont pay interest on equity funding, so, there must be currently a large percentage of our outgoings being spent on debt interest, if you remove that, you remove a large chunk of operating expenditure, therefore, will not need the excess you mention each year, and, it renders the last line about buyers putting money in each year as redundant (tu)

I am sure you will have people telling you are naïve for believing the chairman of the club instead of people with sources and these famous "insiders" that seem to have been quoted for months now....

Some people simply don’t want to believe the situation isn’t as bad as certain groups claim it is…

dont forget the taxi drivers mate

Link to post
Share on other sites

I really enjoyed ALL the statements, seems as though (as a few stated), 99% of the crap in the papers was just that, crap! When will people learn?

In regard to the funding bit highlighted, He is stating we need to look at equity funding rather than "loans". I believe the difference will be big, because, you dont pay interest on equity funding, so, there must be currently a large percentage of our outgoings being spent on debt interest, if you remove that, you remove a large chunk of operating expenditure, therefore, will not need the excess you mention each year, and, it renders the last line about buyers putting money in each year as redundant (tu)

I am sure you will have people telling you are naïve for believing the chairman of the club instead of people with sources and these famous "insiders" that seem to have been quoted for months now....

Some people simply don’t want to believe the situation isn’t as bad as certain groups claim it is…

I am sure I will, and care not a jot! yet, common sense dictated that this was the case all along, I said so long before the new Chairman spoke, he simply confirmed what I had thought all along. As for what some people say on here? At times the NOTW is more reliable!

Link to post
Share on other sites

I really enjoyed ALL the statements, seems as though (as a few stated), 99% of the crap in the papers was just that, crap! When will people learn?

In regard to the funding bit highlighted, He is stating we need to look at equity funding rather than "loans". I believe the difference will be big, because, you dont pay interest on equity funding, so, there must be currently a large percentage of our outgoings being spent on debt interest, if you remove that, you remove a large chunk of operating expenditure, therefore, will not need the excess you mention each year, and, it renders the last line about buyers putting money in each year as redundant (tu)

I am not sure how much of our income is taken up with interest payments, perhaps Boss or similar can confirm that, but the fact remains that AJ does not believe that the club can be run on just day to day income alone, and that an outside investor is required to fund the gap.

My question is how much does he believe does not come in currently per year from the day to day trading that would need to come in from external sources?

On your point regarding the paper talk, I think he has made it quite clear in his statement that there was a disagreement between the club and the bank on future funding, and you can quite properly summarise that the pressure put on the bank after Walter blew thw whistle on them by the fans went a long way to the bank climbing down and backing AJ's business plan after all.

That in itself does not make the stories untrue, (apart from the receivership threat which he stated was untrue) merely that they have now been resolved.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Where does the RST and, to a lesser extent, the RSA go after such a stinging rebuttal from the Chairman?

Are the RST Board members not in an insidious position having backed "TOSIT" chap, who, it appears, couldn't be bothered to show up today?

Should we expect a mass resignation from one or both of these organisations?

Should we expect a highly profile public apology for same?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I really enjoyed ALL the statements, seems as though (as a few stated), 99% of the crap in the papers was just that, crap! When will people learn?

In regard to the funding bit highlighted, He is stating we need to look at equity funding rather than "loans". I believe the difference will be big, because, you dont pay interest on equity funding, so, there must be currently a large percentage of our outgoings being spent on debt interest, if you remove that, you remove a large chunk of operating expenditure, therefore, will not need the excess you mention each year, and, it renders the last line about buyers putting money in each year as redundant (tu)

I am not sure how much of our income is taken up with interest payments, perhaps Boss or similar can confirm that, but the fact remains that AJ does not believe that the club can be run on just day to day income alone, and that an outside investor is required to fund the gap.

My question is how much does he believe does not come in currently per year from the day to day trading that would need to come in from external sources?

On your point regarding the paper talk, I think he has made it quite clear in his statement that there was a disagreement between the club and the bank on future funding, and you can quite properly summarise that the pressure put on the bank after Walter blew thw whistle on them by the fans went a long way to the bank climbing down and backing AJ's business plan after all.

That in itself does not make the stories untrue, (apart from the receivership threat which he stated was untrue) merely that they have now been resolved.

I dont know the figures either matey, but, I dont believe he is looking at it to plug a gap, but, to do so in a different manner. Equity funding IS the way forward rather than "traditional" funding, which incurs charges/interest, and, I would assume on £30 million, thats quite a bit.

So, buyers buy an equity stake in Rangers (think Dragons Den), and, the incentive for them is to grow us. Say they buy 20% of us, and, we are worth £50million then they put in £10million, 3 years down the line, we have doubled in value/worth, they can sell their stake to another party, and, their 20% is now worth £20 million. At the same time, if we half in size, they get £5million back. Its a gamble, but, "we" dont lose out on it, we dont pay anything out monthly/yearly.

So, you add the equity injection to a better business model, and, better run club, we make money.

Link to post
Share on other sites

To an extent TB that has always been the case though. Owners and directors of football clubs digging into their own pockets to either provide loans or to 'gift' money to clubs has always gone on, and the bigger the club the bigger the money involved. They get prestige, ego massage, access to people through the game, a profile, any number of unquantifiable returns for this. I think Johnston is correct in asserting that as it stands today Rangers require another income stream other than the current ones to compete at the level we are used to and the only one he knows of is the largesse of an owner until such time as the TV/Sponsorship revenue changes.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Where does the RST and, to a lesser extent, the RSA go after such a stinging rebuttal from the Chairman?

Are the RST Board members not in an insidious position having backed "TOSIT" chap, who, it appears, couldn't be bothered to show up today?

Should we expect a mass resignation from one or both of these organisations?

Should we expect a highly profile public apology for same?

Is he a shareholder CB? Don't want to detract from your post, but that might explain that bit...

Link to post
Share on other sites

I really enjoyed ALL the statements, seems as though (as a few stated), 99% of the crap in the papers was just that, crap! When will people learn?

In regard to the funding bit highlighted, He is stating we need to look at equity funding rather than "loans". I believe the difference will be big, because, you dont pay interest on equity funding, so, there must be currently a large percentage of our outgoings being spent on debt interest, if you remove that, you remove a large chunk of operating expenditure, therefore, will not need the excess you mention each year, and, it renders the last line about buyers putting money in each year as redundant (tu)

I am not sure how much of our income is taken up with interest payments, perhaps Boss or similar can confirm that, but the fact remains that AJ does not believe that the club can be run on just day to day income alone, and that an outside investor is required to fund the gap.

My question is how much does he believe does not come in currently per year from the day to day trading that would need to come in from external sources?

On your point regarding the paper talk, I think he has made it quite clear in his statement that there was a disagreement between the club and the bank on future funding, and you can quite properly summarise that the pressure put on the bank after Walter blew thw whistle on them by the fans went a long way to the bank climbing down and backing AJ's business plan after all.

That in itself does not make the stories untrue, (apart from the receivership threat which he stated was untrue) merely that they have now been resolved.

I dont know the figures either matey, but, I dont believe he is looking at it to plug a gap, but, to do so in a different manner. Equity funding IS the way forward rather than "traditional" funding, which incurs charges/interest, and, I would assume on £30 million, thats quite a bit.

So, buyers buy an equity stake in Rangers (think Dragons Den), and, the incentive for them is to grow us. Say they buy 20% of us, and, we are worth £50million then they put in £10million, 3 years down the line, we have doubled in value/worth, they can sell their stake to another party, and, their 20% is now worth £20 million. At the same time, if we half in size, they get £5million back. Its a gamble, but, "we" dont lose out on it, we dont pay anything out monthly/yearly.

So, you add the equity injection to a better business model, and, better run club, we make money.

Surely this road leads to a "make a fast buck - I'm out of here" type of investor?

Not a good way forward for this Bear. :(

Link to post
Share on other sites

Where does the RST and, to a lesser extent, the RSA go after such a stinging rebuttal from the Chairman?

Are the RST Board members not in an insidious position having backed "TOSIT" chap, who, it appears, couldn't be bothered to show up today?

Should we expect a mass resignation from one or both of these organisations?

Should we expect a highly profile public apology for same?

Is he a shareholder CB? Don't want to detract from your post, but that might explain that bit...

All that is asked of those entering the stadium today was an AGM invite - there are threads over the past week with numerous "shareholders" offering these invites up to anyone wanting to go, indeed I've done that myself many years ago.

Given the high-profile media hype on this guy and given his "exclusives" in The Herald, one would think, were he the real deal, he'd have at least made an effort to be there............if indeed he is TOSIT?

Or am I reading that all wrong? :(

Link to post
Share on other sites

I dont know the figures either matey, but, I dont believe he is looking at it to plug a gap, but, to do so in a different manner. Equity funding IS the way forward rather than "traditional" funding, which incurs charges/interest, and, I would assume on £30 million, thats quite a bit.

So, buyers buy an equity stake in Rangers (think Dragons Den), and, the incentive for them is to grow us. Say they buy 20% of us, and, we are worth £50million then they put in £10million, 3 years down the line, we have doubled in value/worth, they can sell their stake to another party, and, their 20% is now worth £20 million. At the same time, if we half in size, they get £5million back. Its a gamble, but, "we" dont lose out on it, we dont pay anything out monthly/yearly.

So, you add the equity injection to a better business model, and, better run club, we make money.

I understand exactly what you are saying outlaw, and that is at the very heart of what I am asking.

If the only way, in the chairman's eyes, is to run the club with equity funding, it must be such a large amount of cash as to make any fans membership scheme income insignificant by comparison.

My example of £5M of membership income per year must not be enough given the chairman has said that he could not see such a model working in this country. I am only wondering why?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I dont know the figures either matey, but, I dont believe he is looking at it to plug a gap, but, to do so in a different manner. Equity funding IS the way forward rather than "traditional" funding, which incurs charges/interest, and, I would assume on £30 million, thats quite a bit.

So, buyers buy an equity stake in Rangers (think Dragons Den), and, the incentive for them is to grow us. Say they buy 20% of us, and, we are worth £50million then they put in £10million, 3 years down the line, we have doubled in value/worth, they can sell their stake to another party, and, their 20% is now worth £20 million. At the same time, if we half in size, they get £5million back. Its a gamble, but, "we" dont lose out on it, we dont pay anything out monthly/yearly.

So, you add the equity injection to a better business model, and, better run club, we make money.

I understand exactly what you are saying outlaw, and that is at the very heart of what I am asking.

If the only way, in the chairman's eyes, is to run the club with equity funding, it must be such a large amount of cash as to make any fans membership scheme income insignificant by comparison.

My example of £5M of membership income per year must not be enough given the chairman has said that he could not see such a model working in this country. I am only wondering why?

I dont know mate, perhaps he doesnt see the model that has been shown to him as working, rather than the whole thing in principle? But thats me guessing :)

And CB

Surely this road leads to a "make a fast buck - I'm out of here" type of investor?

That can be taken 2 ways I guess, first is, perhaps the growth wont be so much as to entice the sale, however, if it does, then, we will be being successful, to a degree we havent been in some time, and, as a result, that should then lead to MORE people wanting to invest big bucks in us, leading to more growth as a club? Thats not a bad thing

Link to post
Share on other sites

Surely this road leads to a "make a fast buck - I'm out of here" type of investor?

Not a good way forward for this Bear. :(

I completely agree, that model calls for investors to make decisions that enhance their equity, rather than what may be good for the club.

But, they can only enhance their equity by making the club be of higher value, which, I fail to see how this can be a bad thing? :lol:

Link to post
Share on other sites

We buy a player for £1M. He turns into a superstar and a fans favourite and 12 months later, on 31 August (or January) a bid comes in for £8M for him.

We have no real cover for the player if he goes, and the title race is neck and neck.

The sale of said player for £8M gives a profit in the club accounts of £7M, and therefore the club looks to be doing well, and is therefore (all other things aside) worth more money.

The equity holder would want the sale to go through, the fan would not.

Link to post
Share on other sites

They could, either individually or in partnership with other equity investors, hold a majority stake.

It would be a gamble to keep the player as the title race is nexck and neck, with only the Champions going into the CL.

Hell, this is all hypothetical and can get quite silly, I know what you are saying, and I think you know what I am saying too, can we just let this go!!

Safe to say football clubs have historically not been run for profits, but for the team and its fans, and therefore would not be seen as economically viable for equity investment at our level. The riches of the EPL puts a different slant on things, but not here.

Link to post
Share on other sites

They could, either individually or in partnership with other equity investors, hold a majority stake.

It would be a gamble to keep the player as the title race is nexck and neck, with only the Champions going into the CL.

Hell, this is all hypothetical and can get quite silly, I know what you are saying, and I think you know what I am saying too, can we just let this go!!

Safe to say football clubs have historically not been run for profits, but for the team and its fans, and therefore would not be seen as economically viable for equity investment at our level. The riches of the EPL puts a different slant on things, but not here.

:lol: thats about right mate, we probably should

Link to post
Share on other sites

As soon as Uefa indicate that a Euro or Atlantic type competition is on it's way there will be no shortage of equity funding available for the club to take, but at the moment I'm not so sure. I know it's already been discussed here ad infinitum but I'm convinced now that our future, if we have one, is getting out of the SPL and if possible leave a reserve team there. Where is the money we need to build a team we can be really proud of going to come from if we are 'stuck' in the SPL for the forseeable future?

Link to post
Share on other sites

As soon as Uefa indicate that a Euro or Atlantic type competition is on it's way there will be no shortage of equity funding available for the club to take, but at the moment I'm not so sure. I know it's already been discussed here ad infinitum but I'm convinced now that our future, if we have one, is getting out of the SPL and if possible leave a reserve team there. Where is the money we need to build a team we can be really proud of going to come from if we are 'stuck' in the SPL for the forseeable future?

Tannochside - you raise a very interesting point and I wish someone had picked up on it at AGM. Why can't Rangers with an average tunrover of £45m not be run as a self sufficient business? I can understand why there may be a shortfall initially but if you budget for your lowest possible income each year (ie no CL football) then develop a wage structure around this. Then hey presto we are like any other business. We can spend profit on new players or improving infrastructure and can pay all bills no matter how bad a season we have.

IMO the ideal scenario is for a major investor to come forward who would buy maybe 50-60% of the shares initially with a fans scheme being run in conjunction. There would also be a deal struck with the bank over debt (say even £2 out of £3).

That way the money the fans then come up with would go more to investment on agreed areas rather than debt relief.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Upcoming Events

    • 25 May 2024 14:00 Until 16:00
      0  
      celtic v Rangers
      Hampden Park
      Scottish Cup
×
×
  • Create New...