Jump to content

Accounts out this morning


Recommended Posts

The results are not wonderful but did Green not say when he first came that it would take a few years to show any profit.

I do think the whole set up from top to bottom needs to be looked at and cost savings made.

They also need to bring inhouse PR and anything else they outsource to cut costs.

I don't think they need to spend in Jan unless they use money made from selling players.

It does not concern me about the players as this team are for the fight on the road back (to make sure we get there as quick as poss)

And means we only have to top up when we get there as they will be used to playing as a team.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 566
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Basically much as expected, we are not going bust by Christmas, more detail provided than ever before, doommongers were talking nonsense, and looks like we are on course to break even this year. More

I've just come over the Erskine Bridge - you should see the queue The Sons of Struth are at the front, followed by 3 names, Furry, Greenslade, the RST, the goon brigade, the UB's, the Assembly and Spi

We need to do two more things to move forward 1 Half the wages of Ally and his 2 sidekicks 2 Dispense with ANY board bonuses until we get in to the top division Job done

Many keep claiming in here that Minico have nothing to stand on because no money has been put in by them ... well, if we have paid the £6m back, then no money was put in by ANYBODY !!

There was £8m of new share capital in addition to the IPO. But McCollco don't want you to know that.

Link to post
Share on other sites

For the empty-headed fans (i.e me), all this accounts stuff is going way too deep.

So:

1) Are the accounts positive/negative as a whole?

2) Are the figures sufficient to keep the current boardroom?

And most importantly, is the overall picture for Rangers more Cheryl Cole or Susan Boyle?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Firstly, we are not goign bust anytime soon.

We should make it through the year okay, but I dont think we will be close to breaking even.

We have a £14m operational hole to fill. We have £10m in the bank for the comng year, bringing that down to about £4m over last year to find. This can either be achieved through cost cutting, or through increased revenue, or both.

Say we plug this £4m gap, and add a further £4m through increased revenue, it will still leave us with a hole of £6m to plug in the 2014-2015 season.

Im sure we will be able to get further funding to fill this gap, but I would much prefer to have cut costs now and have us running on an even keel when we got back to the top division.

Break even - was an opinion ! ! We are and have reduced costs - we will increase revenue and we will have no ( or different) one off costs - but as I said it's an opinion

Link to post
Share on other sites

For the empty-headed fans (i.e me), all this accounts stuff is going way too deep.

So:

1) Are the accounts positive/negative as a whole?

2) Are the figures sufficient to keep the current boardroom?

And most importantly, is the overall picture for Rangers more Cheryl Cole or Susan Boyle?

Its dead simple. The answers depend on which forum you are reading.

Link to post
Share on other sites

On initial reading the accounts are not as bad as many thought, however that doesn't make them particularly good either. What really stands out is that those in charge of getting sponsors into our club must do better to justify their wage and bonuses. If sponsorship drops you most certainly should not be due any bonus.

Things were always going to be hard on the way back to the top flight this has been made worse by the campaign of lies waged against the club by a number of journalists/broadcasters who have done their best to stop people signing or sponsoring the club. There will have to be a tightening of belts on the off field side of things, but this must also be balanced by gaining more sponsorship. As McCoist and his backroom staff have taken a reduction in their wages I would hope that those on the board would do the same and also wave their right to any bonus payments as a gesture to the fans who have supplied the bulk of the cash the club has had available and as an admission that they themselves must do better.

It is McCoist's job to put together a squad that will win games and ease our path to the next step of the ladder and more income from that. He has done his part it is now up to the board whoever they are to generate the income to back this up. On initial reading do these accounts merit a pass mark? In my opinion just about, they could have been worse, but also they could have been a lot better as well. Basically there is a lot of room for improvement by the people in charge of generating income for the club.

Link to post
Share on other sites

You sure about that?

"http://www.frc.org.u...ng-concern.aspx"

It seems to be suggesting the auditors role should not extend beyond the period assessed by management, which should be no less than 12 months.

Can you please explain to me why this is not applicable in our case?

Direct from your link:

"When assessing whether the going concern assumption is appropriate, management takes into account all available information about the future, which is at least, but not limited to, twelve months from the balance sheet date. The degree of consideration depends on the facts in each case."

My emboldenment. This is no "12 month rule". If the board's 5 year plan (to which they refer in the accounts and therefore must be made available to the auditors) indicate that we will run out of money in a few years, that is absolutely relevant to the going concern consideration even when it's outside 12 months.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If you think it is possible this year, you have to be the most optimistic accountant I have ever heard of!

It would be possible IMO but only if we get offers in for players - say Wallace, Macleod, Law - that could just about see us break even. Unlikely perhaps.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm in the same boat. The accounts are as clear as mud to me. It doesn't help when you have dozens people on here playing amateur accountant, trying to pick them apart and put their own slant in. I have 3 questions

How much money did we take in in total?

How much money did we spend in total?

What is our current balance?

Fools Gold likes this
Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't understand the optimism guys when we have over £10m of staff costs not related to playing staff. Assuming Mccoist and his team are being paid (criminally) c.£2.2m thats best part of £7m being taken out of the club by the board/owners??? Am i missing something obvious?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Dick.

Sorry, I should have used a smiley. :lol:

We spent £14m more than our income. Wages, including management team and directors, were too high and income streams were as low as they will ever be. We also have costs that won't recur and cost savings where we'll only see the full effect in this year.

Link to post
Share on other sites

On the whole, I think the accounts are probably par for the course.

A particular concern of mines would be the sugar coated use of first team wage : turnover ratio. On first impressions 42 to 43% doesn't sound too bad, however I'd have thought that total wages : turnover would have been a more relevant benchmark.

Considering total wages & salaries [15,855] : turnover [19,107], we're hitting 83% Unhealthy is probably an understatement.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm in the same boat. The accounts are as clear as mud to me. It doesn't help when you have dozens people on here playing amateur accountant, trying to pick them apart and put their own slant in. I have 3 questions

How much money did we take in in total?

How much money did we spend in total?

What is our current balance?

We had £11m in the bank and a loss of £14m at the end of June.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Boss - this is where I'm confused. £17.8m of staff costs minus £7.8m of player costs = £10m on mgt and board. We know the mgt team are being paid way too much (c.£2.2m for the 3) but that leaves c.£7m going out via the board / owners???? For what??? Without these guys taking exorbitant bonuses and salaries the accounts would be ok - but they are. Why is everyone happy with this?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry, I should have used a smiley. :lol:

We spent £14m more than our income. Wages, including management team and directors, were too high and income streams were as low as they will ever be. We also have costs that won't recur and cost savings where we'll only see the full effect in this year.

Nah I know that we spent more than our income, I'm not that stupid :lol:

I meant how will we break even in a years time if we've lost that amount of money over the past year.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Upcoming Events

    • 18 April 2021 14:00 Until 16:00
      0  
      Rangers v celtic
      Ibrox Stadium
      Scottish Cup

×
×
  • Create New...