Scotsman Article

[theweebluenose 4,335]

Rangers blown on to the rocks by Murray bluster

David Murray said a deal with JJB Sports would earn Rangers £11m per year but the figures didn't stack up

OUT of chaos comes order – but it can take a seemingly interminable time, as dread-filled Rangers supporters will almost certainly continue to discover in the coming weeks, months or even years. In the meantime, the tumult that marks the kind of hostile environment into which the Ibrox club has been thrust inevitably gives rise to some notoriously uncertain proposals for salvation.

Among the more frequently mentioned of the dozens (perhaps even hundreds) of suggestions voiced on the myriad media outlets now available to all has been the notion of a fans' buy-out. This supposed ideal, strangely, appears to have gained so much currency that the three official bodies, the (Rangers Supporters) Association, Assembly and Trust respectively, have launched a website that invites their members to make pledges of financial support that will serve as an indicator of the plan's feasibility.

If this unarguably well-intentioned, indeed idealistic, exercise is to produce the many millions required to put a badly-listing ship back on an even keel, those who wish to sail in her will have to confound recent history on a pretty spectacular scale.

Surely nobody with a declared allegiance to Rangers can have forgotten the damning results of the former owner/chairman David Murray's rights issue of just over seven years ago, in December, 2004. Then, as now, the club was in desperate need of re-financing and Murray publicly proclaimed his confidence that the target of £57 million would be reached.

In the event, Murray (or at least his group of companies) was forced to underwrite the issue to the tune of £50.275 million. The total raised amounted to an embarrassing £51,430,995, with "new business" – that is, first-time share buyers – investing only £307,530.00. Even these figures, however, were not miserable enough to prevent the irrepressibly bombastic Murray from acclaiming the exercise as a resounding success.

"The investment by over 4,500 subscribers," he said, "demonstrates strong support for this initiative. Collectively, we have created a firm financial footing for the future of our club."

As was often the case with Murray, the omissions from his utterances were more significant than the inclusions. He did not, for example, dwell on the detail that his pumped-up 4,500 had, with a total of £1,155,995.00, invested precisely £256.88 per head. Or that the new business (£307,530.00 from 1,263 takers) had brought an average subscription of £243.49.

The tripartite website organised by the respective supporters organisations displays a box into which fans are invited to enter the sum they would be willing to pledge to help "save 140 years of history". Intriguingly, the amounts to be ticked, presumably mere "suggestions", start at £500.00, more than double the figure the 1,263 were willing to "sink" on average seven years ago. And, back then, unlike now, the money would be surrendered with a view to a future yield.

Murray's claim to have demonstrated "strong support for this initiative" and created "a firm financial footing for the future of our club", of course, now sounds as empty as a balloon. There was, however, hardly a murmur of demur at the time, despite the absurdity of his bluster having been made clear by the figures.

Nor would his audacity in this respect be checked even by Rangers' ever-accelerating plunge towards their present ignominy. When a contract with the retailer, JJB Sports, gave the latter control of Rangers' shops in exchange for annual revenue which could, naturally, fluctuate in direct relation to sales, Murray insisted that the deal would bring the club £11 million per year.

One gullible business writer on a Sunday newspaper claimed an "exclusive" interview with the Rangers chairman and, in the article, presented a breakdown of the JJB agreement which basically contradicted itself.

Murray had said that Rangers would receive a lump sum of £18 million, but it transpired that this would be "annualised" over ten years, meaning instalments of £1.8 million. The "breakdown" then states that £1 million a year will be saved in interest by paying off £18 million worth of debt, a curious achievement since the £18 million would not arrive in the form of a lump sum. This million in saved interest, along with £2 million-£5 million based on replica shirt sales, was included in the projected year-on-year income of £11 million.

Astonishingly, but almost typical of Murray's 22-year-tenure, this patent nonsense was widely accepted as an inviolable truth. It was left to a City analyst – clearly a man with at least some understanding of Glasgow's football culture – to cast serious doubt on the viability of the deal. "They (JJB) are effectively paying them (Rangers) for something that only appeals to one half of Glasgow," he said. "I wish them luck."

As events have demonstrated, that luck never did materialise. Instead, Murray unloaded the badly damaged goods on Craig Whyte and now the wreckage is so extensive that the salvage experts are having great difficulty in making a proper assessment.

http://www.scotsman....uster_1_2138649

Not wanting to get into a Murray v Whyte argument, both have their glaring faults in my opinion, but quite an interesting article which a few could do with reading

[Guardian 4,281]

The JJB deal brings in just shy of £5m a year for no outlay.

As far as I know, that figure dwarves any previous years takings when we did it ourselves.

Unless of course we find Whyte has mortgaged that as well.

(There's a wee thread title for Declan to start)

[Jimfanciesthedude 25,044]

while the JJB deal was undoubtedly good for the club financially, especially as the worlds economies hit the buffers and derailed in some countries, i cant help but be enraged at how easily murray sold off a piece of the club that has been part of the club since the days of replica shirts began

the man had no morals and would do anything to look good in the eyes of the rangers fans while casually dipping his hand into someone elses pocket to pay for it all, he's the ultimate pickpocket

[Gaffbear 4,107]

Hence why murray and whyte are cut from the same cloth. . Both fucked us

[WVB 2,560]

Sir Davids fan-boys wont like this.

[fyfe 19]

The Scotsman/Scotland on Sunday's arguably given the best coverage of everything happening at Rangers recently. Seems like they're the only group that don't get too involved in the personal stuff.

[Johnny Dangerously 7,566]

I miss seeing the shop in Sauciehall (sp?) St. Prime location too. Pisses you off when you walk further up and see the bheggars shop.

[4MenHadADream 122]

Sir Davids fan-boys wont like this.

Are there any left??

[weshallnotbemoved! 714]

If we could only truly find ways to maximise and realise the potential revenue streams from our global brand then we would really be a commercial giant. We are only scratching the surface of what we could earn.

40 odd thousand every home game, massive armchair support, expatriate fan clubs....even the most limited of entrepreneurial brains could balance the books and then some with that sort of market.

Our official merchandise is limited, expensive and unimaginative.

There must be ways to free ourselves from the shackles of any deals that don't do ourselves justice.

[caseyjones 3,009]

In a purely financial sense, the JJB deal was one of the few astute moves Murray made in his latter years.

[boss 1,941]

I have posted many times on the JJB deal - financially lucrative but awful for the supporters. The Scotsman article, though, is simply wrong on this point at least:

Murray had said that Rangers would receive a lump sum of £18 million, but it transpired that this would be "annualised" over ten years, meaning instalments of £1.8 million. The "breakdown" then states that £1 million a year will be saved in interest by paying off £18 million worth of debt, a curious achievement since the £18 million would not arrive in the form of a lump sum. This million in saved interest, along with £2 million-£5 million based on replica shirt sales, was included in the projected year-on-year income of £11 million.

The £18m DID arrive in a lump sum and so we DO save something like £1m a year in interest. For accounting purposes, the sum is deferred in the balance sheet and credited to profit and loss annually over the ten years. But this shouldn't be confused with the cashflow benefit of physically receiving all the £18m up front.

Not a very well researched part of the article!

[gunslinger 270]

that articles a load of shite.

[nvager 498]

In a purely financial sense, the JJB deal was one of the few astute moves Murray made in his latter years.

Why then are the auditors having a hard time confirming this?

I hope you are correct, but I now have a hard time believing anything I hear coming from Ibrox or ex Ibrox personnel. (Not Auditors)

[theweebluenose 4,335]

that articles a load of shite.

Granted it's not the Journalism at it's best you'd find at the Daily Rebel.

[Jimfanciesthedude 25,044]

Why then are the auditors having a hard time confirming this?

I hope you are correct, but I now have a hard time believing anything I hear coming from Ibrox or ex Ibrox personnel. (Not Auditors)

a guaranteed 3mill a year for doing absolutely nothing nvager, thats what we are getting now, or we were at least, nothing has came out that would indicate the deal was changed

[caseyjones 3,009]

Why then are the auditors having a hard time confirming this?

I hope you are correct, but I now have a hard time believing anything I hear coming from Ibrox or ex Ibrox personnel. (Not Auditors)

I didn't know that there were any concerns from the auditors over that. Do you have a link?

[gunslinger 270]

Granted it's not the Journalism at it's best you'd find at the Daily Rebel.

it could be from a celtc fanzine its so slanted and inaccurate

[theweebluenose 4,335]

it could be from a celtc fanzine its so slanted and inaccurate

[MosesMcNeil 1,664]

The £18m DID arrive in a lump sum and so we DO save something like £1m a year in interest. For accounting purposes, the sum is deferred in the balance sheet and credited to profit and loss annually over the ten years. But this shouldn't be confused with the cashflow benefit of physically receiving all the £18m up front.

Not a very well researched part of the article!

From the Scotsman: The "breakdown" then states that £1 million a year will be saved in interest by paying off £18 million worth of debt, a curious achievement since the £18 million would not arrive in the form of a lump sum. This million in saved interest, along with £2 million-£5 million based on replica shirt sales, was included in the projected year-on-year income of £11 million.

Astonishingly, but almost typical of Murray's 22-year-tenure, this patent nonsense was widely accepted as an inviolable truth.

Journo in talking shite shocker - but with the added feature of a brass neck that allows said hack to describe the event as 'patent nonsense'.

And they get paid for this shite.

[blueben_d 40]

that articles a load of shite.

Trying to compare murrays share issue with the saverangers site is like comparing apples with oranges they are two entirely different entities.

In murrays share issue you werent getting a lot for your money and it certainly wasn't going to drive fan ownership.

Poorly researched and horribly cobbled together article worthy of a blog not a supposedly reputable and respected broadsheet.

[OlegKuznetsov 10,816]

That's a very poorly researched and unprofessional article. It even says the minimum donation is £500 on saverangers.com which is such an easy thing to verify.

[theweebluenose 4,335]

I have posted many times on the JJB deal - financially lucrative but awful for the supporters. The Scotsman article, though, is simply wrong on this point at least:

The £18m DID arrive in a lump sum and so we DO save something like £1m a year in interest. For accounting purposes, the sum is deferred in the balance sheet and credited to profit and loss annually over the ten years. But this shouldn't be confused with the cashflow benefit of physically receiving all the £18m up front.

Not a very well researched part of the article!

Cheers for clearing that bit up, does seem now on inspection quite inaccurate. I for one though do agree with the sentiment of it.

[gunslinger 270]

Cheers for clearing that bit up, does seem now on inspection quite inaccurate, I for one though do agree with the sentiment of it.

its attacking about the only 2 decent things Murray did in his last decade in charge.

[OlegKuznetsov 10,816]

Trying to compare murrays share issue with the saverangers site is like comparing apples with oranges they are two entirely different entities.

In murrays share issue you werent getting a lot for your money and it certainly wasn't going to drive fan ownership.

Poorly researched and horribly cobbled together article worthy of a blog not a supposedly reputable and respected broadsheet.

Exaclty! They also omit the influence of Murray on the fans' actions. I remember a consensus of he allowed, indeed caused, the debt, so he should pay it. Underwriting it merely entrenched that position, giving fans a confidence they didn't need to help the club.

Now Murray's gone and the need is more urgent. Very different times.

[OlegKuznetsov 10,816]

I have posted many times on the JJB deal - financially lucrative but awful for the supporters. The Scotsman article, though, is simply wrong on this point at least:

The £18m DID arrive in a lump sum and so we DO save something like £1m a year in interest. For accounting purposes, the sum is deferred in the balance sheet and credited to profit and loss annually over the ten years. But this shouldn't be confused with the cashflow benefit of physically receiving all the £18m up front.

Not a very well researched part of the article!

Well put. I wasn't sure of those facts, I have to admit. So much water has passed under the bridge since then.