How much are rangers in debt?

[OlegKuznetsov 10,816]

Selling a player is a short-term cashflow fix. It isn't addressing the debt problem.

Wage reduction will also contribute, to a varying extent, depending on who we can get out.

I'm really surprised that nobody seems to want Hemdani who I believe to be on fairly high wages.

[craigeee 60]

I saw David Murray outside McDonalds on Argyle Street asking folk for 20p for a cup of tea.... it's that bad.

[Bluedell 14]

Bluedell it's surely not as simple as lookingat the level of debt and saying we are in trouble. Is the repayment schedule of our debt not what is important here and how it is all structured.

Does anyone outside the club actually know that information ?

At a time when banks are being told to support businesses, what is the sudden panic from all quarters that our debt is about to be "called in" ?

The level of debt is most important in relation to our facilities in the bank.

We have a £21m loan repayable at £1m per annum, which isn't too bad.

However the major issue is that the only other facility we have from the bank is our £15m credit facility (or overdraft, if you like). We can only work within that. Once it's fully utilised we don't have any more cash. What do we do then?

We must be using a large part of it at the moment. The timing of the loan repayment and transfer cash in and out is unknown, but if we are having to sell players now rather than waiting until the summer it's perhaps indicitive of cashflow problems. It could also be for reasons to do with MIH accounting, but I'll let Boss write up on that as that's his theory.

[Bluedell 14]

I'm really surprised that nobody seems to want Hemdani who I believe to be on fairly high wages.

Someone may want him if his wage demands were low but he has probably told his agent he's happy collecting cash for doing nothing.

[GeneralCartmanLee 313]

Bluedell it's surely not as simple as lookingat the level of debt and saying we are in trouble. Is the repayment schedule of our debt not what is important here and how it is all structured.

Does anyone outside the club actually know that information ?

At a time when banks are being told to support businesses, what is the sudden panic from all quarters that our debt is about to be "called in" ?

The level of debt is most important in relation to our facilities in the bank.

We have a £21m loan repayable at £1m per annum, which isn't too bad.

However the major issue is that the only other facility we have from the bank is our £15m credit facility (or overdraft, if you like). We can only work within that. Once it's fully utilised we don't have any more cash. What do we do then?

We must be using a large part of it at the moment. The timing of the loan repayment and transfer cash in and out is unknown, but if we are having to sell players now rather than waiting until the summer it's perhaps indicitive of cashflow problems. It could also be for reasons to do with MIH accounting, but I'll let Boss write up on that as that's his theory.

MIH will be a huge account for Lloyds HBOS I don't see them not supporting him in anyway he can as long as he can show he can manage the debt.

I know he is saying we need to sell a paper and in a season where we have overspent and had no European football it doesn't surprise me. I don't think it is necessarily a sign that we are in serious financial problems. Not accusing you of this but I think a few are falling for the wishful thinking coming from the media and our chums in the East.

[LondonderryLoyal 2]

Bluedell it's surely not as simple as lookingat the level of debt and saying we are in trouble. Is the repayment schedule of our debt not what is important here and how it is all structured.

Does anyone outside the club actually know that information ?

At a time when banks are being told to support businesses, what is the sudden panic from all quarters that our debt is about to be "called in" ?

The level of debt is most important in relation to our facilities in the bank.

We have a £21m loan repayable at £1m per annum, which isn't too bad.

However the major issue is that the only other facility we have from the bank is our £15m credit facility (or overdraft, if you like). We can only work within that. Once it's fully utilised we don't have any more cash. What do we do then?

We must be using a large part of it at the moment. The timing of the loan repayment and transfer cash in and out is unknown, but if we are having to sell players now rather than waiting until the summer it's perhaps indicitive of cashflow problems. It could also be for reasons to do with MIH accounting, but I'll let Boss write up on that as that's his theory.

MIH will be a huge account for Lloyds HBOS I don't see them not supporting him in anyway he can as long as he can show he can manage the debt.

I know he is saying we need to sell a paper and in a season where we have overspent and had no European football it doesn't surprise me. I don't think it is necessarily a sign that we are in serious financial problems. Not accusing you of this but I think a few are falling for the wishful thinking coming from the media and our chums in the East.

Well said General.

We'll know soon enough what the half year numbers are. Until that point I'm afraid until you prove that you've seen Rangers monthly accounts, you are dealing only in only in hypotheses, theories and conjecture, or 'thin air' if you will.

[OlegKuznetsov 10,816]

Bluedell it's surely not as simple as lookingat the level of debt and saying we are in trouble. Is the repayment schedule of our debt not what is important here and how it is all structured.

Does anyone outside the club actually know that information ?

At a time when banks are being told to support businesses, what is the sudden panic from all quarters that our debt is about to be "called in" ?

The level of debt is most important in relation to our facilities in the bank.

We have a £21m loan repayable at £1m per annum, which isn't too bad.

However the major issue is that the only other facility we have from the bank is our £15m credit facility (or overdraft, if you like). We can only work within that. Once it's fully utilised we don't have any more cash. What do we do then?

We must be using a large part of it at the moment. The timing of the loan repayment and transfer cash in and out is unknown, but if we are having to sell players now rather than waiting until the summer it's perhaps indicitive of cashflow problems. It could also be for reasons to do with MIH accounting, but I'll let Boss write up on that as that's his theory.

MIH will be a huge account for Lloyds HBOS I don't see them not supporting him in anyway he can as long as he can show he can manage the debt.

I know he is saying we need to sell a paper and in a season where we have overspent and had no European football it doesn't surprise me. I don't think it is necessarily a sign that we are in serious financial problems. Not accusing you of this but I think a few are falling for the wishful thinking coming from the media and our chums in the East.

I fully agree with that mate.

To me they've seen the recent "article" from crazy Paul on that tim site about "the end of Rangers" and thought "hmm" when they heard us reducing our costs, which is only wise in the current economic context. It's perhaps a sign of how low journalistic standards are and how much they need an eyecatching story to sell papers and keep their jobs, after the redundancies at the Herald and elsewhere. You could see some big names trimmed of papers' wage bills.

On the other hand, this may spur some wealthy Bears to invest in the club. I'm sure Murray would be open to that, depending on the deal.

[OlegKuznetsov 10,816]

Bluedell it's surely not as simple as lookingat the level of debt and saying we are in trouble. Is the repayment schedule of our debt not what is important here and how it is all structured.

Does anyone outside the club actually know that information ?

At a time when banks are being told to support businesses, what is the sudden panic from all quarters that our debt is about to be "called in" ?

The level of debt is most important in relation to our facilities in the bank.

We have a £21m loan repayable at £1m per annum, which isn't too bad.

However the major issue is that the only other facility we have from the bank is our £15m credit facility (or overdraft, if you like). We can only work within that. Once it's fully utilised we don't have any more cash. What do we do then?

We must be using a large part of it at the moment. The timing of the loan repayment and transfer cash in and out is unknown, but if we are having to sell players now rather than waiting until the summer it's perhaps indicitive of cashflow problems. It could also be for reasons to do with MIH accounting, but I'll let Boss write up on that as that's his theory.

MIH will be a huge account for Lloyds HBOS I don't see them not supporting him in anyway he can as long as he can show he can manage the debt.

I know he is saying we need to sell a paper and in a season where we have overspent and had no European football it doesn't surprise me. I don't think it is necessarily a sign that we are in serious financial problems. Not accusing you of this but I think a few are falling for the wishful thinking coming from the media and our chums in the East.

Well said General.

We'll know soon enough what the half year numbers are. Until that point I'm afraid until you prove that you've seen Rangers monthly accounts, you are dealing only in only in hypotheses, theories and conjecture, or 'thin air' if you will.

[Bluedell 14]

MIH will be a huge account for Lloyds HBOS I don't see them not supporting him in anyway he can as long as he can show he can manage the debt.

I know he is saying we need to sell a paper and in a season where we have overspent and had no European football it doesn't surprise me. I don't think it is necessarily a sign that we are in serious financial problems. Not accusing you of this but I think a few are falling for the wishful thinking coming from the media and our chums in the East.

I'm not suggesting that MIH are having debt problems.

[Frankie 505]

MIH will be a huge account for Lloyds HBOS I don't see them not supporting him in anyway he can as long as he can show he can manage the debt.

I know he is saying we need to sell a paper and in a season where we have overspent and had no European football it doesn't surprise me. I don't think it is necessarily a sign that we are in serious financial problems. Not accusing you of this but I think a few are falling for the wishful thinking coming from the media and our chums in the East.

I don't think MIH have much to do with this situation either if I'm honest. The problem is Rangers' debt and how it is rising again to levels we may be unable to accommodate again. Do we really think SDM will be willing to put in another £50million when he wants to leave the club asap? The fans certainly won't subscribe to any share issue while he is in charge.

Regarding the overall situation, I take umbrage at your claims worried fans are falling for media or opposition spin. Many fans are more than capable of examining a situation and making up their own minds. And this case the facts speak for themselves:

1. Because of a bizarre failed transfer strategy and financial gamble in the summer we are now paying for our failure to qualify for Europe.

2. As such, the debt is now rising to at least £30million (unless we apply the Oleg phenomena). Ergo, it could be argued that the bank are having their say - either via this revolving credit facility or via their shareholding in MIH. The bank rumour is only a side issue though and only part of the main problem.

3. The only way that the administration can address this is to move on players (share issues won't work and Murray would come under severe personal attack if he tried to sell non-playing assets) to the tune of at least £3million. The fact we are having to do this now - half-way through the season - suggests time is playing a factor. This lends weight to the external influence rumour. After all, why would a club prepared to take a £9milllion gamble after being knocked out of Europe not be prepared to take another £3million gamble being behind in the SPL?

Now, the above may not be serious financial problems in the same vein as a £83million debt of earlier this century but it surprises me that any Rangers fan would not appreciate the worrying nature of the status quo.

We are struggling for money because of unacceptable strategic mistakes and are now having to sell key players in the middle the season. That's why many fans are disappointed and frustrated. Not because it's Boyd leaving per se or that we're overly concerned about being unable to address rising debt but that the club is being run badly to put us in such a disagreeable position.

That's not wishful thinking from the media or Celtic fans. That's fact.

[Frankie 505]

I fully agree with that mate.

To me they've seen the recent "article" from crazy Paul on that tim site about "the end of Rangers" and thought "hmm" when they heard us reducing our costs, which is only wise in the current economic context. It's perhaps a sign of how low journalistic standards are and how much they need an eyecatching story to sell papers and keep their jobs, after the redundancies at the Herald and elsewhere. You could see some big names trimmed of papers' wage bills.

On the other hand, this may spur some wealthy Bears to invest in the club. I'm sure Murray would be open to that, depending on the deal.

The worried fans I know are not basing their concern on articles from Celtic fans. They are more than capable of making up their own mind and examining the facts for themselves.

As for people investing in the club - well that won't happen as long as Murray is in charge. Of course he'd be open to that but, as shown a few years back, fans of all net-worth are not interested in backing a chairman who plays fast and loose with their money.

What we need is a new owner completely. Unfortunately, again, this isn't going to happen in the current climate. As such, while Murray remains it's important we continue to challenge the mistakes he makes as one thing we can all agree on is that £30million+ of debt doesn't help the sale of the club and certainly doesn't help our chances of success.

That's why people are critical. Not because they buy into propaganda from journalists or Celtic fans but because they want the best for our club after coming to their own informed conclusions on a wide range of issues.

[Frankie 505]

I'm really surprised that nobody seems to want Hemdani who I believe to be on fairly high wages.

You answered your own question.

He earns around £20K per week. Clubs will not be keen on paying such a wage to an aging player and the player himself won't be keen on leaving for a smaller wage.

To avoid such stand-offs in the future, we need to put contractural obligations in place in terms of PRP and our ability to terminate expensive contracts cheaply.

[Bluedell 14]

I fully agree with that mate.

To me they've seen the recent "article" from crazy Paul on that tim site about "the end of Rangers" and thought "hmm" when they heard us reducing our costs, which is only wise in the current economic context. It's perhaps a sign of how low journalistic standards are and how much they need an eyecatching story to sell papers and keep their jobs, after the redundancies at the Herald and elsewhere. You could see some big names trimmed of papers' wage bills.

On the other hand, this may spur some wealthy Bears to invest in the club. I'm sure Murray would be open to that, depending on the deal.

The worried fans I know are not basing their concern on articles from Celtic fans. They are more than capable of making up their own mind and examining the facts for themselves.

As for people investing in the club - well that won't happen as long as Murray is in charge. Of course he'd be open to that but, as shown a few years back, fans of all net-worth are not interested in backing a chairman who plays fast and loose with their money.

What we need is a new owner completely. Unfortunately, again, this isn't going to happen in the current climate. As such, while Murray remains it's important we continue to challenge the mistakes he makes as one thing we can all agree on is that £30million+ of debt doesn't help the sale of the club and certainly doesn't help our chances of success.

That's why people are critical. Not because they buy into propaganda from journalists or Celtic fans but because they want the best for our club after coming to their own informed conclusions on a wide range of issues.

Agreed, Frankie. If people think that I am saying agrees with what was written on CQN then they don't understand what I'm saying. I don't think I even read in detail the last lot of tripe that was written there.

[Frankie 505]

Agreed, Frankie. If people think that I am saying agrees with what was written on CQN then they don't understand what I'm saying. I don't think I even read in detail the last lot of tripe that was written there.

I don't even know the article they are on about... Nor do I want to read it before it's posted...

[Briton 394]

I'm really surprised that nobody seems to want Hemdani who I believe to be on fairly high wages.

You answered your own question.

He earns around £20K per week. Clubs will not be keen on paying such a wage to an aging player and the player himself won't be keen on leaving for a smaller wage.

To avoid such stand-offs in the future, we need to put contractural obligations in place in terms of PRP and our ability to terminate expensive contracts cheaply.

If you could terminate a contract for less than what it's worth, it wouldn't be a contract. I'm not sure what you mean about PRP and contractual obligations...are you saying Hemdami is in some way not being hounarable? (as Bluedell has insinuated).

[Frankie 505]

If you could terminate a contract for less than what it's worth, it wouldn't be a contract. I'm not sure what you mean about PRP and contractual obligations...are you saying Hemdami is in some way not being hounarable? (as Bluedell has insinuated).

Contracts are mutally terminated all the time. I'm just suggesting that we should write certain conditions into them before we agree terms.

For example: we sign someone for £15K per week but agree that if they fall out of the first team squad their wages are reduced and/or both parties can mutually terminate for an agreed %age of the remaining wage. Just as bonuses are applied when performance is good, the club should gain when performance is bad.

I've no idea what the status is with Hemdani but I'm sure both parties would prefer anything other than the status quo as long as no-one overly gains/loses from any pre-existing agreement.

Of course many players/agents wouldn't enjoy being bound by such an initiative but it's time we showed that we won't be messed around and reduced the risk when bringing in players of a high wage in particular.

[Bluedell 14]

I'm really surprised that nobody seems to want Hemdani who I believe to be on fairly high wages.

You answered your own question.

He earns around £20K per week. Clubs will not be keen on paying such a wage to an aging player and the player himself won't be keen on leaving for a smaller wage.

To avoid such stand-offs in the future, we need to put contractural obligations in place in terms of PRP and our ability to terminate expensive contracts cheaply.

If you could terminate a contract for less than what it's worth, it wouldn't be a contract. I'm not sure what you mean about PRP and contractual obligations...are you saying Hemdami is in some way not being hounarable? (as Bluedell has insinuated).

I'm not suggesting that Hemdani isn't being honourable. I'm sure he is willing to play if called upon, and is honouring his contract that the club gave him. However he obviously doesn't have ambitions to play and is happy to "do a Balde" but without the bad feeling involved.

[JoetheBear 0]

I don't know how much debt we are in and tbh I don't think the absolute level matters all that much. Clubs like Man U and Chelsea are in much more debt than we are.

What does matter is the ability of a business to keep the debt to a manageable level and to service that debt. When a business starts selling off capital assets for short term cash flow reasons it tells you 2 things. Firstly that the business actually has capital that it can use to reduce/service debt - in general therefore I think that the wild and wishful predictions from the east end are well wide of the mark.

However the fact that you have to do it is not a sign of financial health. A healthy well managed business should be able to service its debt from its ordinary activities. It is a concern that we appear to have lost the ability to do this.

[Briton 394]

If you could terminate a contract for less than what it's worth, it wouldn't be a contract. I'm not sure what you mean about PRP and contractual obligations...are you saying Hemdami is in some way not being hounarable? (as Bluedell has insinuated).

Contracts are mutally terminated all the time. I'm just suggesting that we should write certain conditions into them before we agree terms.

For example: we sign someone for £15K per week but agree that if they fall out of the first team squad their wages are reduced and/or both parties can mutually terminate for an agreed %age of the remaining wage. Just as bonuses are applied when performance is good, the club should gain when performance is bad.

I've no idea what the status is with Hemdani but I'm sure both parties would prefer anything other than the status quo as long as no-one overly gains/loses from any pre-existing agreement.

Of course many players/agents wouldn't enjoy being bound by such an initiative but it's time we showed that we won't be messed around and reduced the risk when bringing in players of a high wage in particular.

I wouldn't sign a contract like that and I'm certain no player/agent in his right mind would. An appearance element covers losing form but you can't say I'll pay you £15k a week but I can terminate at any time if I change my mind about you. Of course you can always mutually terminate.

Look at the situation with Hemdami. He seemed to be playing OK but Smith seems to have decided to ignore him because he has refused to move to some small Turkish outfit. There is no way there is ever going to be a clause that says the manager can terminate in that situation. Think about that in reverse. You might as well not have contracts.

[Frankie 505]

I don't know how much debt we are in and tbh I don't think the absolute level matters all that much. Clubs like Man U and Chelsea are in much more debt than we are.

What does matter is the ability of a business to keep the debt to a manageable level and to service that debt. When a business starts selling off capital assets for short term cash flow reasons it tells you 2 things. Firstly that the business actually has capital that it can use to reduce/service debt - in general therefore I think that the wild and wishful predictions from the east end are well wide of the mark.

However the fact that you have to do it is not a sign of financial health. A healthy well managed business should be able to service its debt from its ordinary activities. It is a concern that we appear to have lost the ability to do this.

Very fair analysis...

And of course, there is only so many capital assets we can sell off for short-term cash flow. Boyd (or AN Other) now; who else in the future? Are we confident of unearthing a Hutton, Cuellar, Cousin or Boyd to compensate for our under-performance? Is this strategy even working as we lose title after title to Celtic and debt rises?

Similarly, the point I and others are making is why are we in such a state again? The answer is obvious - extremely poor transfer and financial planning over the last year.

The reluctance and often downright obstinance of some to deny this is bizarre.

[Frankie 505]

I wouldn't sign a contract like that and I'm certain no player/agent in his right mind would. An appearance element covers losing form but you can't say I'll pay you £15k a week but I can terminate at any time if I change my mind about you. Of course you can always mutually terminate.

Look at the situation with Hemdami. He seemed to be playing OK but Smith seems to have decided to ignore him because he has refused to move to some small Turkish outfit. There is no way there is ever going to be a clause that says the manager can terminate in that situation. Think about that in reverse. You might as well not have contracts.

My example was extremely empirical and I'd expect our club's financial/legal experts to come up with a much more workable solution.

As it stands football is favoured much to much for players and if clubs are really suffering from the financial downturn then they should exploring ways of changing this.

[Briton 394]

As it stands football is favoured much to much for players and if clubs are really suffering from the financial downturn then they should exploring ways of changing this.

Players are paid too much IMO. Trouble is that the laws of supply and demand operate and I don't see what can be done about that. I'm not sure it's all for the players though, particularly at the lower levels. You could argue that they should be able to give notice and move to a different job, just like the rest of us.

[Frankie 505]

Players are paid too much IMO. Trouble is that the laws of supply and demand operate and I don't see what can be done about that. I'm not sure it's all for the players though, particularly at the lower levels. You could argue that they should be able to give notice and move to a different job, just like the rest of us.

Indeed. Like I say there is room for negotiation on this.

Perhaps an issue Rangers as a founding member of the new European Club Association should be progressing.

[JoetheBear 0]

I don't know how much debt we are in and tbh I don't think the absolute level matters all that much. Clubs like Man U and Chelsea are in much more debt than we are.

What does matter is the ability of a business to keep the debt to a manageable level and to service that debt. When a business starts selling off capital assets for short term cash flow reasons it tells you 2 things. Firstly that the business actually has capital that it can use to reduce/service debt - in general therefore I think that the wild and wishful predictions from the east end are well wide of the mark.

However the fact that you have to do it is not a sign of financial health. A healthy well managed business should be able to service its debt from its ordinary activities. It is a concern that we appear to have lost the ability to do this.

Very fair analysis...

And of course, there is only so many capital assets we can sell off for short-term cash flow. Boyd (or AN Other) now; who else in the future? Are we confident of unearthing a Hutton, Cuellar, Cousin or Boyd to compensate for our under-performance? Is this strategy even working as we lose title after title to Celtic and debt rises?

Similarly, the point I and others are making is why are we in such a state again? The answer is obvious - extremely poor transfer and financial planning over the last year.

The reluctance and often downright obstinance of some to deny this is bizarre.

Cheers Frankie. I remember back in the 90's listening to Bob Cramsey making the point that our set up whereby SDM was clearly in charge was ideal from the point of view of being able to act decisively in the transfer market. I think he was speaking in the wake of one of the many transfer fiascos that used to afflict Celtic at that time while we effortlessly recruited players like Gascoigne and Laudrup.

The downside though is that you are relying almost entirely on the wisdom and judgment of a single person and while SDM's style was well suited to the circumstances of the 80's and 90's it doesn't actually work now. I still don't begin to understand why we signed the likes of Mendes and Bougherra AFTER the Kaunas game.

I think either of these players would have made the difference and avoided the current financial difficulties. I hope that those in charge have learned their very expensive lesson from the events of last August and that the financial and transfer planning improves for the future.

[Frankie 505]

I think either of these players would have made the difference and avoided the current financial difficulties. I hope that those in charge have learned their very expensive lesson from the events of last August and that the financial and transfer planning improves for the future.

Indeed.

Unfortunately, given the mistakes of last summer seem eerily similar to the ones made at the turn of the century, then maybe we're asking too much for our administration to use the negative experiences wisely.