Review of the 2008 accounts

[Bluedell 14]

Overview

In a year when Rangers qualified for the group stages of the Champions League and then went on and reached the UEFA Cup final the club made a loss, before the sale of players, of £1.1 million. The sale of Alan Hutton was required to show a profit for the year. This highlights the financial plight of the club, being as successful as we were in Europe we still need to sell players to make a profit.

Why did we not make a higher profit?

Income increased by £23 million over 2007 – This including £11 million from UEFA for the Champions League/UEFA Cup and £10 million in additional gate receipts due to the number of games played.

Net Operating expenses increased by £13.7 million - This is mainly due to a £10 million increase in staff costs (see next section).

Amortisation (write-off) of players’ values increased by £3.2 million – the cost of players is written off over the period of their contracts and the purchase of players costing over £10 million at the start of the season resulted in an increase in the write-off over the prior year.

With the increase in income being offset by the higher operating costs and higher amortisation of players it resulted in the prior year’s operating loss of £5.1 million becoming an operating profit of £641,000.

Interest payable of £1.7 million, an increase of £454,000 over the prior year due to the increase in debt, is then deducted which results in a loss before the sale of players of £1.1 million.

The sale of players, primarily Hutton, generated a profit of £7.7 million which meant that we made a profit before tax for the year of £6.6 million.

The bottom line is that profits were lower than everyone predicted due to higher wages paid to the players.

Staff costs

Staff costs increased by £10 million, from £24 million to £34 million, with Wages and Salaries increasing by a whopping 60%!

The reasons for this are that average salaries were increased when the squad was strengthened (the new players must be on relatively higher salaries), and there were huge bonuses allegedly totalling £7 million paid to the players due to the successful run in Europe.

The club apparently made practically no money from one of the rounds in Europe as most of the cash generated from the financially hard-pressed fans had to go in bonus payments.

Murray and Bain must take a large degree of criticism for this as it suggests that the bonus levels were allowed to be negotiated at too high a rate, possibly because their own expectations of success were low.

The accounts try and justify this by pointing out that wages to turnover ratio fell from 58% to 53%, but with turnover increasing by 54%, I would expect a much larger fall in the ratio, and the relatively poor results have to be partly blamed on the badly negotiated players’ bonuses.

Net debt

The net debt has increased by £5 million to £21.6 million. Why did this happen when we made a profit for the year?

There are a number of factors, but the main reason is that we spent more on players than we received.

In terms of actual cash incomings and outgoings we spent £10.6 million on players and only received £3.9 million. The Hutton deal is spread over a period to June 2010.

Part of this is due to timing with a most 2007/8 purchases being included in this year’s accounts, but they also include 2008/9 buys of Lafferty, Miller and Velicka.

The sale of players

Alan Hutton and Filip Sebo were sold during the year. It was widely reported that Hutton was sold for £9 million and Sebo was sold for £1 million. The club’s website states that “It is understood that the (Hutton) transfer fee could top £9million”.

The strange thing is that the proceeds reflected in the accounts only come to £8.7 million. What has happened to the missing £1.3 million?

Perhaps the widely reported “pay-off” to Hutton of around £1 million was made by Spurs as a “golden hello” and they reduced the transfer fee by that amount? Perhaps the actual fees were previously exaggerated, or there were payments to third parties which required to be netted off? There are no further amounts to be added to the £8.7 million dependent on games etc, as there are no contingent assets disclosed in the accounts.

Any payments to anyone in the club, Hutton pay-off bonuses to directors relating to transfers received would be included in Staff Costs and not netted off against income. If there were such payments then it shows the income from transfers in an even worse light.

Whatever the reason, it appears that we got less than was expected.

Martin Bain

Martin Bain’s emoluments for the year were £668,000, an increase of 87% over the previous year! In last year’s review, I commented that his salary was too high based on the size of the company, but this point is obviously being ignored by SDM. It continues to be far too high for the size that Rangers are.

Peter Lawwell earned £393,000 in 2007, which was a big increase on 2006, possibly because of a comparison with Bain’s package, with Lawwell arguably having greater responsibilities and autonomy.

It is presumed that the large increase in Bain’s salary is due to a performance based bonus. It is rumoured that this is based on income (which would appear to make sense as his large bonus in 2006 appears to have been due to the JJB deal), which implies that it is due to the Hutton transfer. If that is the case I fail to see why Bain should get a percentage of it as he is only doing his job, and had nothing to do with the vast majority of the amount received.

If Murray is serious about wanting to keep expenditure under control, he should start by reviewing the package of his Chief Executive.

Fixed assets

Over the last few years the freehold property owned by the club (the Stadium and Murray Park) have been valued based on a “depreciated replacement cost” basis. While this is allowed under accounting standards, I have been critical of this approach. Imagine you owned a house that you could sell for £100,000, but it would cost £150,000 to rebuild it. The cost to rebuild it is fairly irrelevant to you, and you would generally think of the house as being worth £100,000 but it’s this approach that has been used in previous years.

There has been a change this year, with the property being valued based on its “recoverable amount” (although this value is exactly the same as the amount in last year’s accounts). I do not know much about property, but I would not be confident in the ability to sell the stadium and Murray Park for £120 million.

A valuation was carried out using last year’s method, but this was not used in the accounts. It is not known whether this showed a (likely) increase in value which the directors have decided to hold back for another year or a decrease in value that they did not want to put through as it would weaken the balance sheet.

JJB deal

It appears that the club only received their standard £3 million from JJB in respect of the ongoing agreement, which is surprising following the huge amount of shirt sales in the run-up to Manchester. How many more strips need to be sold for the bonus payments to kick in? It looks like it is an impossibly high target, despite the optimism given by the Rangers Board at the time of the initial announcement.

Related party transactions

This section of the accounts highlights the amount of business that Rangers do with the other parts of the Murray Group. Murray has been criticised in a number of quarters for this over the years, but it should be noted that services provided this year of £1.2 million are less than the prior year of £1.9 million, and this has been a steady trend of reduction in services from the peak of £4.3 million in 2004.

The services provided relate to call centre (tickets) and mail order but I am unaware of why there is a reduction in the charge in a busy year, other than the fact that IT services were mentioned last year but not this year.

It should also be noted that Rangers would have to pay someone for these services and as long as we are paying what we would be charged by a third party then I do not see an issue with it being done by a company within the Murray Group.

Share issue

There were £50,000 of shares issued during the year in respect of the Rangers Supporters Trust’s Gersave scheme.

Five year summary

The average attendance is shown as 46,278, which is a drop of 2,239 from the previous year. This is the lowest average attendance since 1995/96. This is surprising but appears to be due to the low attendance at domestic cup games resulting from financial pressure put on fans following the record number of games that were played last season.

HBOS

Despite the takeover of HBOS, who are the club’s bankers, it is believed that there will be no immediate change to the finance available to the club. The credit facility of £15 million is reviewed every November but it is unlikely that this would be reduced as the Murray group are still available to act as backers of it, and the new Lloyds Halifax bank are unlikely to annoy a large proportion of the Scottish public by withdrawing the facility. However if the club reached the stage of having to negotiate an increase in the facility then difficulties may arise unless the economic climate has significantly improved.

HBOS own 11.5% of Murray International Holdings and due to that and the fact that the large bank loans that MIH have from HBOS are secured on prime commercial property, it is unlikely that the takeover of the bank will have any serious consequences on MIH that would affect Rangers.

The one area where it is believed that the current worldwide economic problems have had an effect on the club is in the area of redevelopment of the stadium and the surrounding Hinshelwood estate. Murray said that he would probably make an announcement on this in May. A revised announcement was then due to be made in June. Yet another announcement is due soon, apparently with significant cut back from the original plans.

I would speculate that the original plans had to be shelved and heavily revised due to the proposed finance drying up following the problems in the American sub-prime market and the knock-on effect that was felt by most banks worldwide who cut back on new lending. There are other possibilities (lack of council support or that there was never any serious intention to announce anything) but it is my belief that the funding issue that has been the main issue.

The future

Since the end of the financial year, we have bought Bougherra, Mendes, Davis and Edu for a reported £11.2 million and brought in a reported £9.3 million for the sales of Cuellar and Cousin, so these purchases are almost self-financing. However it is unlikely further cash will be spent in the winter without players leaving the club first.

What sort of loss will we make in 2008/9 following our early exit from Europe? If we take the 2007 loss of £6.3m as our base and account for the fewer European games, the increased amortisation of the players, the apparently increased payroll and higher interest payments, but offsetting the profit from Cuellar and Cousin then we could be looking at a loss in excess of £12 million.

Given this size of loss, we could see the net Debt in excess of £30m which is quite frightening given that it was only £5.9m two years ago.

The fact that we can make little money even in successful years is the principle reason why the club has not been sold, and it is very unlikely whether Murray will be able to find a buyer in the near future either due to this.

The directors do not appear to have any way of stemming the ever increasing level of debt. If we are unable to have a consistent run of years of qualifying for the Champions League and continue to make money in transfer dealings then we could see the club’s financial position moving back towards 2004 levels unless something drastic or innovative is done.

[Frankie 505]

Tremendous breakdown mate and the future is certainly worrying for our club.

No CL football next season and we can say hello to 2004 again.

[OzGers 425]

just out of curiousity, am i right in saying that some of the biggest clubs in the world are in alot more debt than we are? I am sure teams like arsenal, chelsea, Man U etc report debts twice the size of ours...

[Bluedell 14]

just out of curiousity, am i right in saying that some of the biggest clubs in the world are in alot more debt than we are? I am sure teams like arsenal, chelsea, Man U etc report debts twice the size of ours...

Yes, they do. However they play in leagues that have got large TV revenue, and have the option of being sold for large amounts of money. We unfortunately don't.

[Bluepeter9 5,167]

Reasnobly well written but a couple of key points at odds. If the Hutton sale was to be spread out until June 2010 then the income would also be spread over that time - the analysis assumes that £8.7 is attributed to Hutton therfore there can be no more income to be recoognised.

I feel sorry fo rMurray - he is dammed if he does and dammed if he doesn't. Some fans want him to risk all and get in the best (thus pay the most) some fans want financial stability ( like bluedell) - which for Rangers means reducing costs as increasing revenue is diffiucult (especially without a European run).

IMHO SDM does a great balancing job of doing his best by Rangers - taking a few risks financially (allowing the debt to rise) while trying to bring in the best players we can (thus the high wage costs). We have a huge player pool at the moment and I would not be surprised if this is greatly reduced in January and certainly next summer. SDM may also be taking a slight gamble by (praying) assuming we can make it into the CL next year without spending mmuch more - we have a lot of young players on the books and on reasonable length contracts and that will again reduce any debt increase from this year.

Running Rangers is an unenviable task with fans expecting the earth, but with the reality of a limited budget, SDM does a greta job, IMHO, of getting this balancing act right - erring in Favour of the team.

[Youllneverwinaway 0]

A good Post but a crucial factor has been missed out which slightly skews the view taken.

Our debtors figure this year has increased substantially.

2008 Debt === 21.6m

2008 Debtors = 13.9m

2008 Net posit= 7.8m

2007 Debt === 16.5m

2007 Debtors = 6.8m

2007 Net posit= 9.7m

If we had received all revenue in the time period, our debt would have been lower last season that the previous one

[Youllneverwinaway 0]

Reasnobly well written but a couple of key points at odds. If the Hutton sale was to be spread out until June 2010 then the income would also be spread over that time - the analysis assumes that £8.7 is attributed to Hutton therfore there can be no more income to be recoognised.

I feel sorry fo rMurray - he is dammed if he does and dammed if he doesn't. Some fans want him to risk all and get in the best (thus pay the most) some fans want financial stability ( like bluedell) - which for Rangers means reducing costs as increasing revenue is diffiucult (especially without a European run).

IMHO SDM does a great balancing job of doing his best by Rangers - taking a few risks financially (allowing the debt to rise) while trying to bring in the best players we can (thus the high wage costs). We have a huge player pool at the moment and I would not be surprised if this is greatly reduced in January and certainly next summer. SDM may also be taking a slight gamble by (praying) assuming we can make it into the CL next year without spending mmuch more - we have a lot of young players on the books and on reasonable length contracts and that will again reduce any debt increase from this year.

Running Rangers is an unenviable task with fans expecting the earth, but with the reality of a limited budget, SDM does a greta job, IMHO, of getting this balancing act right - erring in Favour of the team.

[wronglypenalised 14]

Very good breakdown for the dimwits like myself who struggle to see through the jargon of finance-speak. If it looks like we are going to have to sell one high profile player per year (Hutton-->Cuellar-->???) then surely we must be at the fork in the road that forces Walter to start promoting from the youth ranks. Now I'm not saying flood the team with 5 or 6, but at least 1 player making circa 20 appearances and a further 1 or 2 getting the 10 appearance marker. Thus meaning if we see the likes of a Mendes being sold to a "big" EPL club like Bolton or if Mowbary comes in for Thomson then we will already have a player who has some first team experience of stepping up to the plate.

It could make for interesting times in the near future for our great club.

[Bluedell 14]

Reasnobly well written but a couple of key points at odds. If the Hutton sale was to be spread out until June 2010 then the income would also be spread over that time - the analysis assumes that £8.7 is attributed to Hutton therfore there can be no more income to be recoognised.

There is no more income on the Hutton deal to be recognised. the amount reflected in the profit and loss acount does not depend on the spread of payments.

I feel sorry fo rMurray - he is dammed if he does and dammed if he doesn't. Some fans want him to risk all and get in the best (thus pay the most) some fans want financial stability ( like bluedell) - which for Rangers means reducing costs as increasing revenue is diffiucult (especially without a European run).

IMHO SDM does a great balancing job of doing his best by Rangers - taking a few risks financially (allowing the debt to rise) while trying to bring in the best players we can (thus the high wage costs). We have a huge player pool at the moment and I would not be surprised if this is greatly reduced in January and certainly next summer. SDM may also be taking a slight gamble by (praying) assuming we can make it into the CL next year without spending mmuch more - we have a lot of young players on the books and on reasonable length contracts and that will again reduce any debt increase from this year.

Running Rangers is an unenviable task with fans expecting the earth, but with the reality of a limited budget, SDM does a greta job, IMHO, of getting this balancing act right - erring in Favour of the team.

I would agree that it is a very difficult job. Murray to a certain extent got lucky last year when he took a risk, and in the past has done wll to bring finance into the club (Enic, King, his own rights issue). We are heading in the wrong direction financially in favour of the team on the park. I do believe Murray does have plans to pull another rabbit to pull out of the hat. Whether he can achieve what he actually plans and whether we will like it is another matter.

Whether people agree or disagree about how well Murray runs the club, there are always areas that he can be criticised.

Obviously in an article like this, it is written very much from a financial persective

[Youllneverwinaway 0]

Very good breakdown for the dimwits like myself who struggle to see through the jargon of finance-speak. If it looks like we are going to have to sell one high profile player per year (Hutton-->Cuellar-->???) then surely we must be at the fork in the road that forces Walter to start promoting from the youth ranks. Now I'm not saying flood the team with 5 or 6, but at least 1 player making circa 20 appearances and a further 1 or 2 getting the 10 appearance marker. Thus meaning if we see the likes of a Mendes being sold to a "big" EPL club like Bolton or if Mowbary comes in for Thomson then we will already have a player who has some first team experience of stepping up to the plate.

It could make for interesting times in the near future for our great club.

Therein lies the problem though in my opinion. Smith wont promote the young ones, so its entirely possible, there could be trouble ahead on that front if Watty remains at the helm

[reddrock 107]

superb breakdown mate , it would seem as I thought that we are still pretty much in the same situation as before the accounts came out

[boss 1,941]

Reasnobly well written but a couple of key points at odds. If the Hutton sale was to be spread out until June 2010 then the income would also be spread over that time - the analysis assumes that £8.7 is attributed to Hutton therfore there can be no more income to be recoognised.

In the nicest possible way, I'm afraid that's just nonsense. :harhar:

You are confusing profit and cashflow - two very different things. The profit is recognised when the sale is made. We then receive the cashflow over a period of time. There is NO MORE profit to be recognised in respect of Hutton. None.

And it is not "reasonably well written". It is VERY well written. :beer2:

[Bluedell 14]

A good Post but a crucial factor has been missed out which slightly skews the view taken.

Our debtors figure this year has increased substantially.

2008 Debt === 21.6m

2008 Debtors = 13.9m

2008 Net posit= 7.8m

2007 Debt === 16.5m

2007 Debtors = 6.8m

2007 Net posit= 9.7m

If we had received all revenue in the time period, our debt would have been lower last season that the previous one

You are also skewing it by not bringing the increase in trade creditors.

I could have done more on the debt but felt it would start to get a bit technical and not read that well. I highlighted the fact that we had not received all of the Hutton cash which implied that debtors had increased, but a detailed dialogue on the debt movement may have interested me but not many others.

[Bluedell 14]

And it is not "reasonably well written". It is VERY well written. :beer2:

Thanks, mate. You'll get your consultancy fee.

[Ace 3,556]

Reasnobly well written but a couple of key points at odds. If the Hutton sale was to be spread out until June 2010 then the income would also be spread over that time - the analysis assumes that £8.7 is attributed to Hutton therfore there can be no more income to be recoognised.

I feel sorry fo rMurray - he is dammed if he does and dammed if he doesn't. Some fans want him to risk all and get in the best (thus pay the most) some fans want financial stability ( like bluedell) - which for Rangers means reducing costs as increasing revenue is diffiucult (especially without a European run).

IMHO SDM does a great balancing job of doing his best by Rangers - taking a few risks financially (allowing the debt to rise) while trying to bring in the best players we can (thus the high wage costs). We have a huge player pool at the moment and I would not be surprised if this is greatly reduced in January and certainly next summer. SDM may also be taking a slight gamble by (praying) assuming we can make it into the CL next year without spending mmuch more - we have a lot of young players on the books and on reasonable length contracts and that will again reduce any debt increase from this year.

Running Rangers is an unenviable task with fans expecting the earth, but with the reality of a limited budget, SDM does a greta job, IMHO, of getting this balancing act right - erring in Favour of the team.

I thought the article was very well written, aimed at the more financially illiterate of us

However, i do agree with the rest of your statement and i think that this applies to SDMs overall ownership of Rangers, wherein he has tried to meet the expectations & desire of the fans.

Yes, certain decisions must be questioned .. £80m debt is unnanceptable but i heard no fan (or at least anywhere near a majority) decrying the spending during our 9-in-a-row run.

Now, when we have no European campaign, the funds were provided to strengthen the team so as the league can be taken from the bheggars. Yes, the funds have come form the sale of Hutton & Cuellar but with the current financial climate those funds, or a portion thereof, needn't have been released.

SDM will come under criticism from both halves of our supprt, those who beleive he hasn't invested anywhere near enough in the team & we lack quality ... or.... those who belive his spending has been reckless & has driven the club to almost financial ruin.

[boss 1,941]

A good Post but a crucial factor has been missed out which slightly skews the view taken.

Our debtors figure this year has increased substantially.

2008 Debt === 21.6m

2008 Debtors = 13.9m

2008 Net posit= 7.8m

2007 Debt === 16.5m

2007 Debtors = 6.8m

2007 Net posit= 9.7m

If we had received all revenue in the time period, our debt would have been lower last season that the previous one

And our Trade Creditors increased from £6m to £13m! So if we had paid all our creditors (for players) then this would net off with our revenue from our debtors! Why mention debtors and not creditors ?

In any event, Bluedell mentions in his 'Net debt' section that most of the Hutton money is still due in (and by implication is included in Trade Debtors).

Bottom line is this - we made a lower profit than we all thought (and than we should have) as a result of higher player wages, massive player bonuses that were badly negotiated, and higher amortisation on tranfer fees. In a season when we generated our highest ever European income, and our highest ever transfer fee, that's not great news.

I think Bluedell's conclusions are valid. In the absence of a 'rabbit' this season, we need to sell in order to: (1) get transfer money in to reduce the debt, and (2) reduce the wages bill to reduce the loss there will otherwise be this year.

[Bluepeter9 5,167]

Reasnobly well written but a couple of key points at odds. If the Hutton sale was to be spread out until June 2010 then the income would also be spread over that time - the analysis assumes that £8.7 is attributed to Hutton therfore there can be no more income to be recoognised.

In the nicest possible way, I'm afraid that's just nonsense. :harhar:

You are confusing profit and cashflow - two very different things. The profit is recognised when the sale is made. We then receive the cashflow over a period of time. There is NO MORE profit to be recognised in respect of Hutton. None.

And it is not "reasonably well written". It is VERY well written. :beer2:

No offense taken - and I hope like wise :harhar: - I am NOT confusing profit with cash flow - If there is confusion it is in the revenue recognition - (are you selling an asset or an item) in selling Hutton we are selling an asset not an inventory item and if we were getting paid over 3 years we (should!) NOT recognise the revenue in a single year - we amortise players based on contract length and (should!) be doing the same when we sell them, if the sale is not for a lump sum. However Bluedell himself recognises that all the revenue has been recognised in the single year and therefore no new money is due to us next year.

It is only reasnobly well written in that Bluedell's commentary is negative towards SDM, every conclusion seems negative - and givs no credit for the balancing act of putting out a strong team while maintaining some sort of balancing act with the finances that the club perform. I liked the article as at least it was not full of some of the wilder claims on finance made on this site.

[Bluedell 14]

Yes, certain decisions must be questioned .. £80m debt is unnanceptable but i heard no fan (or at least anywhere near a majority) decrying the spending during our 9-in-a-row run.

The £80m debt was nothing to do with NIAR. It came later. In the years while this debt was being built up questions WERE asked. The issue was brought up at the AGM and the shareholders were reassured (lied to?) that the debt would not go up to that level. IIRC we were told the debt would not exceed £40m.

During this period Murray resigned as Chairman for some reason, and abidicated his responsibility by refusing to attend AGMs, despite the fact that he was still a director and was still the person making the major decisions.

[Bluedell 14]

No offense taken - and I hope like wise :harhar: - I am NOT confusing profit with cash flow - If there is confusion it is in the revenue recognition - (are you selling an asset or an item) in selling Hutton we are selling an asset not an inventory item and if we were getting paid over 3 years we (should!) NOT recognise the revenue in a single year - we amortise players based on contract length and (should!) be doing the same when we sell them, if the sale is not for a lump sum. However Bluedell himself recognises that all the revenue has been recognised in the single year and therefore no new money is due to us next year.

Sorry,mate, but that's wrong. It is correct to recognise the revenue in one year. It is a different treatment when we sell players from when they are amortised. We have £4m outstanding that will be paid after more than one year.

It is only reasnobly well written in that Bluedell's commentary is negative towards SDM, every conclusion seems negative - and givs no credit for the balancing act of putting out a strong team while maintaining some sort of balancing act with the finances that the club perform. I liked the article as at least it was not full of some of the wilder claims on finance made on this site.

I think that these accounts deserve to be looked at generally in a negative light.

[boss 1,941]

No offense taken - and I hope like wise :harhar: - I am NOT confusing profit with cash flow - If there is confusion it is in the revenue recognition - (are you selling an asset or an item) in selling Hutton we are selling an asset not an inventory item and if we were getting paid over 3 years we (should!) NOT recognise the revenue in a single year - we amortise players based on contract length and (should!) be doing the same when we sell them, if the sale is not for a lump sum.

You're entirely wrong. Whether you are selling an asset or an item of stock (being the analogy you wish to use) the entire sale is recognised in the period in which the sale is made. It is irrelevant to the P&L account when you actually receive the cashflow from the sale. You seem to want to be deferring income even though we already have an unconditional right to receive that income based on an event that happened in the period. That is just nonsense - no other word for it.

It is only reasnobly well written in that Bluedell's commentary is negative towards SDM, every conclusion seems negative

Bluedell is one of the most objective and pragmatic people I know re SDM - neither a vehement opponent nor a slavish flunky. Very much of the "Rangers First" ilk.

[*Manticore* 1,893]

Thanks for that Dell interesting stuff.

On the JJB deal though, I reckon the big boost for jersey sales came after the price had been cut (about halved iirc) because there's new strip this season. That happened before the Semis, possibly before the Quarters.

Not sure if that's relevant?

[*Manticore* 1,893]

Bluedell is one of the most objective and pragmatic people I know re SDM - neither a vehement opponent nor a slavish flunky. Very much of the "Rangers First" ilk.

You're not allowed to say anything negative about minty, he gets the plaudits when we have success and the manager and/ or players are to blame when it goes wrong

[boss 1,941]

On the JJB deal though, I reckon the big boost for jersey sales came after the price had been cut (about halved iirc) because there's new strip this season. That happened before the Semis, possibly before the Quarters.

Not sure if that's relevant?

That's a good point.

I seem to recall at the time that SDM stated (or at least implied) that our bonus (ho ho ho) was protected from future falls in selling prices - i.e. our bonus was based on units sold, rather than income. If JJB had any sense, however, there may have been some provision made in the agreement in respect of the selling-off of stock cheaply towards the end of a season.

[Bluedell 14]

It is only reasnobly well written in that Bluedell's commentary is negative towards SDM, every conclusion seems negative - and givs no credit for the balancing act of putting out a strong team while maintaining some sort of balancing act with the finances that the club perform. I liked the article as at least it was not full of some of the wilder claims on finance made on this site.

Having reread the article, I think that's a little unfair. I have been critical of the size of bonuses and the size of Bain's salary, both of which I believe are deserved

I also implied that the directors were optimistic in some of the announcements at the time of the JJB announcement. I would have thought that it would probably have been more Bain than Murray, but can't remember [Edit - It was SDM - "early indications are positive" in respect of additional royalty payments]. However saying that, I still believe that the deal was a very good one, and was not criticising the deal itself.

The Related party section was fairly positive in respect of Murray.

My statement about the directors being unable to stem the increasing debt is more of a factual statement than a criticism. if I had answers, I'd be giving them but I don't. I'm not sure that there are any which is of concern.

[Bluepeter9 5,167]

It is only reasnobly well written in that Bluedell's commentary is negative towards SDM, every conclusion seems negative - and givs no credit for the balancing act of putting out a strong team while maintaining some sort of balancing act with the finances that the club perform. I liked the article as at least it was not full of some of the wilder claims on finance made on this site.

Having reread the article, I think that's a little unfair. I have been critical of the size of bonuses and the size of Bain's salary, both of which I believe are deserved

I also implied that the directors were optimistic in some of the announcements at the time of the JJB announcement. I would have thought that it would probably have been more Bain than Murray, but can't remember [Edit - It was SDM - "early indications are positive" in respect of additional royalty payments]. However saying that, I still believe that the deal was a very good one, and was not criticising the deal itself.

The Related party section was fairly positive in respect of Murray.

My statement about the directors being unable to stem the increasing debt is more of a factual statement than a criticism. if I had answers, I'd be giving them but I don't. I'm not sure that there are any which is of concern.

Bluedell - not really having a go at you and as such I will change my statement to say ' well written article but comes across as critical as Murray, who has a hellish job of balancing both the books and fans expectations'! fair ?