Reaction to the 6 month financial results

[Guest]

I'm glad to see the reported figures for the club, and a little surprised at quite how much of a jump we have had in both turnover and profit with only 3 CL group games against 1 CL qualifier being the main difference in our matches between the two periods.

I think you can safely say the CL is worth nearer to £15M to the SPL winners, should they qualify directly, and the runners-up fail to negotiate the qualifiers.

View the full article

[millar brand 0]

It would be helpful to have some real clarity on how much it will take to extricate the club from MIH. David Murray has said in the past he won't be difficult to deal with when a suitable buyer comes forward, but then he's said a lot of things over the years hasn't he ? MIH own Rangers and are in serious debit to Lloyds. How much does a prospective buyer have to pay and to whom to get us back to being a separate and viable business entity. I realise it's very unlikely we'll be told and therefore we'll continue to stumble from one rumour to the next as to what is really going on. I hold David Murray responsible for this. When the going was good he was always happy to be interviewed, now he's the invisible man.

[californiadreamin52 339]

Maybe some knowledgeable person could clear this up for me it has been widely reported that Rangers and MIH are so inexplicably link that the mother companies dept MIH would have to be covered before Rangers could be sold or alternatively MIH would have to go belly-up before the individual parts can be sold.

Next question will the recent profit generated by Rangers remain with Rangers or end up with MIH?

[millar brand 0]

Rangers can be sold regardless of the debt that MIH has.

Rangers is a separate business entity and while the majority of our shares are held by MIH, and the majority of their shares are held by David Murray, probably through a variety of other companies, we can be sold by MIH at any point in time. The trouble is with the debt MIH has the bank are looking at the entire group of which we are a part.

There is a great nmyth about David Murray in that he personally pumped millions of his own money into Rangers. He didn't. He invested in Rangers through MIH. A limited company is limited in debt to the value of its share capital, not the personal wealth or personal assets of the owners of that share capital. If MIH went bust and was wound up with unpaid debts David Murray would still on a personal level be a very wealthy man.

[mrblue 0]

I think part of the problem is that rumour gets repeated enough (including in the press)that it gets taken as fact. For example, the price of the club being the 32m debt. I dont think this is the case and no official source has ever confirmed that this is the price of the club. As AJ has said the debt is not an immediate problem, so why would MIH sell its shares for nothing when Rangers have the capacity to pay the debt without the aid of MIH.

In terms of MIH syphoning off our profits I dont think thats the case. Lets face facts, for years Rangers have been run at a loss due to over spending and going over budget. For a 6 month period we make a profit and all of a sudden fans think we are MIHs cash cow!

The problem with our link to MIH is one of mismanagement. Thats why Lloyds want a bigger say in the running of the club because with Murray in charge the reckless decision making would have continued, put the club at risk and jeopardised the banks loan. After the financial crisis banks are no longer happy taking these big gambles. Thats why even though our debt isnt that massive (relative to other clubs) the bank wont give us any leeway in our budgets.

[nvager 498]

Some interesting facts came out with the AJ interview.

Firstly that the 31m debt was not reduced or only marginally reduced after making the 13m profit - which in itself wont be fully realised until we receive all our CL money. This is due to the other debt we had of money owed for buying players = 9m pounds which thankfully has now been nearly paid off. In other words our true debt was around 40m not 31m and it is now back to 31m or so.

The Bank's debt is not a debt per se but a 20m loan which has to be reduced by 1m pounds per year and that it seems is easy to do.

The real problem is SDM and MIH and what they require to sell Rangers and also the Bank's take on a new buyer and their cooperation with both the buyer and MIH.

There is some shadow boxing going on between interested parties and Rangers but no hard bids as yet.

It seems I was correct in a post a week or so ago when I said that the Bank may not be the big problem but a split between SDM, Muir and MIH versus The Rangers Board and Management team, but my feeling is something will give in the next few weeks after AJ's statement. It adds a lot of clarity to the situation. Also once MIH's accounts are published in April that might add further clarity tooto the overall picture and may force SDM to come out of hiding and make some useful comments.

All in all an interesting time for Bears and we know now just how crucial it is that we win the SPL this season.

[mrblue 0]

Some interesting facts came out with the AJ interview.

Firstly that the 31m debt was not reduced or only marginally reduced after making the 13m profit - which in itself wont be fully realised until we receive all our CL money. This is due to the other debt we had of money owed for buying players = 9m pounds which thankfully has now been nearly paid off. In other words our true debt was around 40m not 31m and it is now back to 31m or so.

The Bank's debt is not a debt per se but a 20m loan which has to be reduced by 1m pounds per year and that it seems is easy to do.

The real problem is SDM and MIH and what they require to sell Rangers and also the Bank's take on a new buyer and their cooperation with both the buyer and MIH.

There is some shadow boxing going on between interested parties and Rangers but no hard bids as yet.

It seems I was correct in a post a week or so ago when I said that the Bank may not be the big problem but a split between SDM, Muir and MIH versus The Rangers Board and Management team, but my feeling is something will give in the next few weeks after AJ's statement. It adds a lot of clarity to the situation. Also once MIH's accounts are published in April that might add further clarity tooto the overall picture and may force SDM to come out of hiding and make some useful comments.

All in all an interesting time for Bears and we know now just how crucial it is that we win the SPL this season.

I agree. Great post. Thats a good point about the 9 million owed for players which no fans had heard of until yesterday. That was burried amongst the good news, but must have been a major problem for the board. Lets face it, no wonder we didnt buy any players in the summer- we spent 9 million on players we already had!

I did get the impression from AJ the bank was puting us under a lot of pressure, however, with strict budgets, but that we didnt have any choice in the matter. He seemed to be saying that the bank was a neccessary evil until we got a new owner.

[californiadreamin52 339]

Thanks for the clarity just wished you had left out how important it is we win the league this year ...no pressure then.

[boss 1,941]

Thats a good point about the 9 million owed for players which no fans had heard of until yesterday. That was burried amongst the good news, but must have been a major problem for the board. Lets face it, no wonder we didnt buy any players in the summer- we spent 9 million on players we already had!

The c.£9m for players was known about. See the Accounts, note 15 Creditors - the amount shown under "Trade creditors" was £8.637m. In addition, some or all of the £0.5m shown in note 27 may have become due if certain players had reached so many games etc. Also, AJ made mention of these trade creditors at the AGM (I seem to recall him saying about £7m had been paid, but I'm happy for someone with a less alcohol-damaged memory to correct me). So no surprises.

http://home.rangersmedia.co.uk/accounts/2009.pdf

[radlord 24]

in that case why are we only slightly eating into the debt if we made a £15M 'profit'?

All this financial stuff is massively confusing

[Guest therabbitt]

Boss - please sum everything up for simpletons like me.

K?

Ta.

[Jimfanciesthedude 24,506]

in that case why are we only slightly eating into the debt if we made a £15M 'profit'?

All this financial stuff is massively confusing

because we had to finish paying off the likes of lafferty's fee etc, plus we have had to service the debt so far this year

our profit in the second 6months of the season will likely go towards the debt and interest on it, and we have the added bonus of whatever we get for mendes, freeing up his and rothen's wages, and any prize money given out (even if the prize money given out covers the players bonuses, thats a good place to start)

also with the season ticket renewal at the end of the season, hopefully rangers business plan for the next financial year will allow even more room for wiggle when dealing with contracts and maybe loan deals in

[mrblue 0]

Thats a good point about the 9 million owed for players which no fans had heard of until yesterday. That was burried amongst the good news, but must have been a major problem for the board. Lets face it, no wonder we didnt buy any players in the summer- we spent 9 million on players we already had!

The c.£9m for players was known about. See the Accounts, note 15 Creditors - the amount shown under "Trade creditors" was £8.637m. In addition, some or all of the £0.5m shown in note 27 may have become due if certain players had reached so many games etc. Also, AJ made mention of these trade creditors at the AGM (I seem to recall him saying about £7m had been paid, but I'm happy for someone with a less alcohol-damaged memory to correct me). So no surprises.

http://home.rangersmedia.co.uk/accounts/2009.pdf

In that case, maybe I should change that to "I hadnt heard about until yesterday"

If you dont mind, Ive got a wee question. I read on gersnet an article by Bluedell saying that according to the accounts we took in $678,000 in transfers. Does that mean we sold Barry and Charlie Adam for a combined total of 678,000 or is there another interpretation possible (ie. those payments will be in instalments)? Im stunned if thats all we made from those transfers.