Frankie 505 Posted May 21, 2007 Share Posted May 21, 2007 RHL is part of MIH. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rintoul 0 Posted May 21, 2007 Share Posted May 21, 2007 i personally think he should sell for a small sum on condition the new owner pumps somehting like 50 million ito the team.....wolves just completed a similar deal 2nite Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frankie 505 Posted May 21, 2007 Share Posted May 21, 2007 i personally think he should sell for a small sum on condition the new owner pumps somehting like 50 million ito the team.....wolves just completed a similar deal 2nite Will that small sum include the ~£20million debt to HBOS and the £50million which MIH had to put in 2 years ago...?Just what will SDM accept to move on? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ricardopatrese 0 Posted May 21, 2007 Share Posted May 21, 2007 I'm not trying to get anyone to bite... just asking a few questions that many Rangers fans have. I'm certainly not the biggest business brain on here so I'll defer to those of us who are... I'll write some of my own musings though for interests sake... 1. Albion car park - I think this was a sale however, I could be wrong as I'm sure I heard a rumour about this reverting back to the club sometime soon. Certainly PPG (that's Premier Property Group owned by Murray International Holdings) have made a lot of money out of the deal which I'd have preferred stayed in house.2. Again, Azure make a lot of money from the club through their catering contract. I wish that we did this ourselves. Without DD I don't know the details of the contract but it's another asset a new buyer can't work on. Same as the JJB retail deal which the results of are still aren't clear this early into the deal.3. Edmiston House didn't play a large part on the balance sheet. But if RHL really wanted it we could have rented it to them allowing us to use the ground for future projects if required. Selling on the cheap to another MIH company won't enthuse buyers I wouldn't have thought.4. I think the guy (and others) have questioned the money SDM (via MIH) has made from his time at Rangers. The steel tender (which MIM won) was relevant to that debate (although admittedly not the previous post).5. Could we not build Murray Park and keep Edmiston House? Of course we could - that's a bizarre analogy to make!As I sated earlier the tangible assets in Rangers FC are not all that considerable when one considers the lack of manovere available to any prospective buyer. Only Ibrox Stadium and Murray Park are really worth anything and the value of Ibrox is questionable given it's locus. It also wouldn't surprise me to see MP be a makeweight in any potential takeover of the club. In addition our debt is increasing again, our turnover is down, our profit is down - we will make a substantial loss this season and our share price has plummeted as a result.None of these facts (which can't be hidden by creative accounting) will attract a buyer. Our assets are limited and that obvious fact is why SDM cannot sell the club despite trying his very best to do so.All good retorts Frankie - I'll do my best to reply quickly given the hour: -The reason that SDM would have sold off to PPG etc and contracted to the likes of JJB is because he wanted to focus on what the core business interests were. This is no great secret. When going through tight times, businesses will often either sell off or contract out elements of their businesses to others who know exactly what they are doing. More often than not the vendor holds onto the rights and merely contracts the work, but if SDM has sold certain things to PPG then it means that he doesnt have to employ staf at RFC to look after contracted work being done by the likes of PPG. After all, it is all under SDm's control. SDM needs every aspect of the business to be profitable - not just the football side, so it's crazy to think that he should have held on to Edmiston House which may have been losing money, only for that part of the business to be subsidised by the footballing side of the club when it was making money. By selling Ed House to PPG he effectively said "right, there you go - stand on your own two feet and make a profit" - in which case the football side is not affected by it - and the same goes for other parts of the RFC assets.This can all be read two ways of course. When things are going well SDM is the best thing since sliced bread. When they don't go so well, he's a w**ker who needs got shot of - except in some minor cases certain RFC fans I know have never been keen on him.Personally I like the guy and I admire the fact that he tries to make a profit out of the club - I'd be more suspicious of him if he didn't.I don't want some benevolant godfather holding the purse strings and handing out lolly-pops to the fans when they get bored. Competition drives desire and hunger nd I want more of that at RFC - if that means we have to starve a couple of years then so be it. We were spoilt for nine and I remember experiencing the apathy that existed after about 5 of those years and being disgusted by it. I think we have the hunger back now and it's about fucking time. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
disgruntled_bear 157 Posted May 21, 2007 Author Share Posted May 21, 2007 Found this........ Last year We were worth $147millionhttp://www.forbes.com/lists/2007/34/biz_07...tions_Rank.html Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Muff 245 Posted May 21, 2007 Share Posted May 21, 2007 £10 just like Wolves Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
disgruntled_bear 157 Posted May 21, 2007 Author Share Posted May 21, 2007 So thats about £74million just checked it out on yahoo US dollars to pound sterling converter Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frankie 505 Posted May 21, 2007 Share Posted May 21, 2007 All good retorts Frankie - I'll do my best to reply quickly given the hour: -The reason that SDM would have sold off to PPG etc and contracted to the likes of JJB is because he wanted to focus on what the core business interests were. This is no great secret. When going through tight times, businesses will often either sell off or contract out elements of their businesses to others who know exactly what they are doing. More often than not the vendor holds onto the rights and merely contracts the work, but if SDM has sold certain things to PPG then it means that he doesnt have to employ staf at RFC to look after contracted work being done by the likes of PPG. After all, it is all under SDm's control. SDM needs every aspect of the business to be profitable - not just the football side, so it's crazy to think that he should have held on to Edmiston House which may have been losing money, only for that part of the business to be subsidised by the footballing side of the club when it was making money. By selling Ed House to PPG he effectively said "right, there you go - stand on your own two feet and make a profit" - in which case the football side is not affected by it - and the same goes for other parts of the RFC assets.This can all be read two ways of course. When things are going well SDM is the best thing since sliced bread. When they don't go so well, he's a w**ker who needs got shot of - except in some minor cases certain RFC fans I know have never been keen on him.Personally I like the guy and I admire the fact that he tries to make a profit out of the club - I'd be more suspicious of him if he didn't.I don't want some benevolant godfather holding the purse strings and handing out lolly-pops to the fans when they get bored. Competition drives desire and hunger nd I want more of that at RFC - if that means we have to starve a couple of years then so be it. We were spoilt for nine and I remember experiencing the apathy that existed after about 5 of those years and being disgusted by it. I think we have the hunger back now and it's about fucking time.Sorry, you didn't really answer my points...Some outsourcing is to be expected and I can understand the business reasons for doing so. However, given the successes of the PPG owned carpark and RHL EH and of the Azure owned catering for minimal investment (the car park is crap, the food is crap and EH is still a dump), there was no reason Rangers could not have held onto them and made the money these companies are now. That would have meant these assets would have remained part of Rangers FC and not be making SDM money which does not come back into the club other than for minimal contract payments.Edmiston House was the old ticket office and it obviously didn't make money. Fine, move the TO and rent the building to RHL. But keep the building don't sell such a valuabe asset on the cheap.No-one is suggesting SDM should throw money at Rangers. Neither wouldn't I expect our owner to try and make money. However, what I would expect is for the club to take precedence over personal profit. Given the relative states of RFC compared to MIH since 1988, I'm not so sure that is the case.That's why some business practices have to be questioned. The fact SDM cannot sell RFC says it all for me about the quality of our assets. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
CanadianGer 1 Posted May 21, 2007 Share Posted May 21, 2007 In terms of what the club is worth, you have to accept the standard criteria on which a business is sold is either a) a mulitiplier reflecting discounted cash flows being generated over time or b ) a direct buy out of the shares of the company reflecting a price per share times the total number of shares. I would suggest that Murray will be looking for a price based on option b ) but will be getting offers more closely linked to a). The reasons are numerous but the principal one will be how Murray chooses to regard the very considerable cash input (GBP50M). Unless there is some tax efficient method to write this off against a massive profit elsewhere, he will have to some of this cash recouped from the deal. Although we all think of Rangers as a massive global institution, it will be very difficult for SDM to leverage that advantage during a sale because he has not created significant avenues for the club to benefit from that. In fact two very effective ways for the club to benefit from overseas markets (the website and the shirts) are not directly controlled by the club. A new owner would have to either be entirely satisfied with how those two deals were structured or reduce the value of their bid accordingly. for my money, the overseas element is worth far far less than it could be because it is predominantly prospective income, rather like the potential income of a dotcom stock 7 or 8 years ago.Valuation of the stadium is tremendously difficult, but if anyone has access to the shareholder report, there will be some figure included there for this asset. The value will not be the present day replacement cost. Every year, the club will have had to depreciate the asset in line with standard accounting practice. No future owner could possibly contemplate bulldozing the stadium as the location would not be sufficiently profitable and due to the limitation of dealing with our listed main stand facade. Therefore, trying to establish a site value in addition to the depreciated value of the asset as extant is meaningless.I believe very little value is ascribed to players directly in this type of deal, but this is just conjecture on my part - I've never sold a football team. However, I believe that the value of any buy out clauses, etc is added to the deal while the costs of wages etc is obviously part of the cash flow calculation.Overall, I think the Chairman will have a reasonably difficult time to sell at a price that reflects the size and influence we all think our club has. But I hope we find a well qualified new owner who has the ambition and drive to take our club on. I think Murray himself would admit that he is tired and rather out of ideas. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eric_Caldow 60 Posted May 21, 2007 Share Posted May 21, 2007 It's all in here for June 2006http://www.rangers.premiumtv.co.uk/staticF...,5~31966,00.pdfInterim report January 2007http://www.rangers.premiumtv.co.uk/staticF...,5~60266,00.pdf Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saudibear 0 Posted May 22, 2007 Share Posted May 22, 2007 ASSET STRIPPING???!!! WTF are you on about?? I'm sorry I was not around to answer your aggressively phrased question in person but I'm afraid with the time difference I was fast asleep dreaming of better days for our club. Frankie did an admirable job in answering for me. Indeed my pet peeve is the Albion car park purchased by PPG from RFC for approximately 750,000 pounds which is pretty close to the annual income from the property. In the time since that asset was sold PPG have made 2-3 million pounds gross income and obviously retain ownership of the Albion which will also have increased in value by quite a bit. This sale to me was certainly not in RFC's best interest. EH and Azure are along the same lines as the income from them after the sale still found it's way to Mr Murray. JJB is a little different, as far as I know Mr Murray has no connection with them but it's still a club asset we are missing. Murray park can't be classed as an asset gained in the same sense as RFC did not purchase this on the cheap from one of Mr Murray's other companies. It was financed from the ground up by RFC. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts