Jump to content

RFC Interim Results


StublueKPL

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 68
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

It's an improvement. Nothing more nothing less. I am happy with my stance. No way will I be cuddling up to the men in suits until I see tangible and sustained improvement.

and if king came in with his supposed 50million warchest (god i hate that word) and we spent a vast fortune of it including 5million more on the squad for the championship next season, would you be happy at the expenditure being way higher than it would be just now

maybe not you as such, but a lot of people deriding the board on here while holding on to everyword by king and the others like murray etc simply dont realise that while a big spend to improve our team is a good thing at first, if that money doesnt always come in eventually you'll end up with a shortfall

we spent the 22mill raised in the share option, and that was declared a disaster, whats the difference if we blew 20mill of kings money, or whoevers money

spunking cash is still spunking cash, the current regime need time to actually cut down the waste spend

Link to post
Share on other sites

and if king came in with his supposed 50million warchest (god i hate that word) and we spent a vast fortune of it including 5million more on the squad for the championship next season, would you be happy at the expenditure being way higher than it would be just now

maybe not you as such, but a lot of people deriding the board on here while holding on to everyword by king and the others like murray etc simply dont realise that while a big spend to improve our team is a good thing at first, if that money doesnt always come in eventually you'll end up with a shortfall

we spent the 22mill raised in the share option, and that was declared a disaster, whats the difference if we blew 20mill of kings money, or whoevers money

spunking cash is still spunking cash, the current regime need time to actually cut down the waste spend

I questioned the figure of £50 million spending in another thread.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't understand how people think it is ok to have a £3.5m loss for 6 month period .

we recently had a clean slate with no debt , have filled out the stadium for past 2 seasons , had 20m IPO money but still there isn't a sustainable business being run .

The only reason some find it acceptable is that expectations levels were for a much bigger loss .

A clean slate? Left with historical infrastructure the size of an EPL club, footballing debts, pay offs all on vastly reduced income.

Open your eyes.

Link to post
Share on other sites

A clean slate? Left with historical infrastructure the size of an EPL club, footballing debts, pay offs all on vastly reduced income.

Open your eyes.

People don't realise how much it costs to run a club especially under these conditions with the income we are getting

Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't understand how people think it is ok to have a £3.5m loss for 6 month period .

we recently had a clean slate with no debt , have filled out the stadium for past 2 seasons , had 20m IPO money but still there isn't a sustainable business being run .

The only reason some find it acceptable is that expectations levels were for a much bigger loss .

There are 2 reasons we have lost money, We have paid our staff far too much and the season tickets were far too cheap this season. f we keep costs roughly the same in the coming season and increase the season ticket to what it should be, the club will show a slight profit. We are not going to break even until we are back in the top league and challenging for Europe. That was always the case!
Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't understand how people think it is ok to have a £3.5m loss for 6 month period .

we recently had a clean slate with no debt , have filled out the stadium for past 2 seasons , had 20m IPO money but still there isn't a sustainable business being run .

The only reason some find it acceptable is that expectations levels were for a much bigger loss .

Was far from a clean slate in sfl3

Football debts around £3.5m

Cost of the loan to buy the club £5.5m

Ipo set up cost £6.1m

Legal fees/fines etc must have came to a few million

Signing x amount of players as well after being left with half a dozen or so after relegation.

Rangers should be doing better but the club had a huge number of one off costs over the last 18 months as well.

Link to post
Share on other sites

We are where we are and unfortunately that means lower earning potential through sponsorship, other commercial income and season ticket pricing.

The one thing that really pisses me off though is our take from the broadcasting rights, which let's face it is poor in relation to what the pariahs in the so called premiership will receive. No Rangers games to televise and there would never be the same deal on offer to the SPFL.

All these haters from the diddy clubs plus the mhanks don't seem to (or won't) realise that their clubs are coining it in due to the famous Glasgow Rangers

Link to post
Share on other sites

We are where we are and unfortunately that means lower earning potential through sponsorship, other commercial income and season ticket pricing.

The one thing that really pisses me off though is our take from the broadcasting rights, which let's face it is poor in relation to what the pariahs in the so called premiership will receive. No Rangers games to televise and there would never be the same deal on offer to the SPFL.

All these haters from the diddy clubs plus the mhanks don't seem to (or won't) realise that their clubs are coining it in due to the famous Glasgow Rangers

I can't understand why the club has not addressed this as dross like Ross co are making more from the TV deal than Rangers it would seem. Can you imagine Man utd sitting back and taking a smaller amount of TV income from the English fa than the likes Oxford City or Yeovil town?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Was far from a clean slate in sfl3

Football debts around £3.5m

Cost of the loan to buy the club £5.5m

Ipo set up cost £6.1m

Legal fees/fines etc must have came to a few million

Signing x amount of players as well after being left with half a dozen or so after relegation.

Rangers should be doing better but the club had a huge number of one off costs over the last 18 months as well.

Yes , some avoidable one off costs .

The IPO costs shouldn't have exceeded £2m and the Malcolm Murray witch hunt of Green cost £1.5m . Couldn't run a fuckin bath .

Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't understand why the club has not addressed this as dross like Ross co are making more from the TV deal than Rangers it would seem. Can you imagine Man utd sitting back and taking a smaller amount of TV income from the English fa than the likes Oxford City or Yeovil town?

Rangers FC should copy right our journey and our TV revenue stream should not be up for negotiation to the SPFL.

We should be on much more than any of these diddy clubs.

It was a carve up but they better not allow us to be pushed around again.

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

    No upcoming events found

×
×
  • Create New...