Bluedell

I had accounted for that. That's why you get �£1.45m per year from �£18m over 10 years. In 2003 accounts Nick Peel said we were 2nd in the UK with a turnover of �£19.2m. What sort of net profit did we make on that? 15%-18%? Would that be normal for a retail business? Perhaps less as we don't have great economies of scale? And that was a good year. The prior year was �£11.8m Still appears to be far less than we are currently making. There is nothing wrong with him doing the deal to reduce the debt. IIRC the "12 months" comment was made after the the JJB deal. I also believe it was carefully worded and he said something along the lines of "hope to be debt free" or similar, so he couldn't be accused of lying about it.

I think that the shops were short leasehold and therefore we would not have made money when we moved out. It probably costs us the balance of the lease. You would imagine that plans for establishing merchandising again were low down the priority list given it's meant to be so far in the future.

"Auditors to JJB Sports have raised concerns about the sports retailer�s financial situation and warned that the company could go under." http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/retailandconsumer/3084664/JJB-auditors-raises-doubts-about-sports-retailer-as-a-going-concern.html This could have serious implications for us. While the JJB deal was financially good, what happens if they go under? I would assume that we get to keep the upfront payment, but no other retailer will touch that deal with a barge poll and we have sold all of our shops. We may need to start our retail business from scratch again sooner than we expected.

Barry Robson doesn't seem to have any problem putting in killer corners.

Whether the bonuses were too high is obviously a judgemental call. I don't have the detailed breakdown of how much the bonuses were for any specific stage, but if you think that for a round in Europe the gate money is only going to pay players' wages then it suggests that they were too high. Did they need to be as high as they were? My feeling is that they didn't and that they could have been negotiated at a lower level.

I've been arguing the same thing for years and years, but usually get told by neutrals that it's not the same as they don't mean it when they sing it.

Agreed, although there are obviously some financial benefits, plus a whole lot of glory from a UEFA cup run, but it seems apparent that the bonuses were too high.

These accounts seem to suggest that we need to do it every year. 2006 and 2008 show small profits which come nowhere near meeting the loss in non-CL seasons eg 2007. bain's comments don't seem to stack up against the evidence, although perhaps he was looking at budggets that have been subsequently superseded by the large and expensive player purchases. It's incorrect to look at just a figure of �£3m. You also need to take account of the �£18m that we got upfront (�£1.45m per year after expenses plus the interest savings on that sum (arguably +�£600K), so you really should be asking if we would have made over �£5m. It's impossible to say, but I would say that the financial benefits of the JJB deal in other years would outweigh any potential gain that we may have received last season.

Broadcasting income is up from �£5.0m to �£5.4m, which covers both domestic and European income. However income for the CL group stages and UEFA Cup from the quarter finals onwards are negotiated centrally and are excluded for here as they will be contained in Commercial income. There therefore weren't that many European games included in Broadcasting income.

Not exclusively, and that's the problem. Whe you hear a Rangers fan call a Portugese player one when playing against a Portugese team in Europe, they aren't meaning a Celtic fan.

Part of our problem is that too many have used it in the wrong manner.

What the response should be: Dear UEFA, Celtic fans refer to Protestants as "huns". This is a widely accepted fact, so much so that the Police Service in Northern Ireland (PSNI) have outlawed their officers from using that term along with other sectarian and racist terms. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/northern_ireland/7206891.stm I am disappointed that you can dismiss this complaint without proper investigation, and the fact that it is discriminatory has nothing to do with personal feelings or impressions. When walls around parts of Belfast are daubed with "Huns Out", they are not referring to Rangers fans, but are put there by extermists who wish for people of the Protestant religion to leave that part of the city. I hope that you will reconsider this matter and treat this matter with the seriousness it deserves, and not attempt to brush it under the carpet.

I think the accounts have surprised a lot of people. Too many believed the hype about the extra cash forgetting that we have expenses as well. I would agree about the debt. I never felt the debt was ever going to be down at zero, even before I found out about the bonuses and we bought the additional players in June although I did think it may have been under �£10m. Some people say it's not a problem as long as we trade profitably, but we don't and it is.

31st January 1987. :Shudder:

Our corners seemed to improve for a while last season, particularly in the second half of the season, but they have reverted back to the usual pish this year.

I'd have taken anyone at home. Good draw. When is it due to be played?

Part 2 HBOS Despite the takeover of HBOS, who are the clubâ��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 clubâ��s financial position moving back towards 2004 levels unless something drastic or innovative is done.

Part 1 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 Ã?£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 Ã?£23 million over 2007 ââ?¬â?? This including Ã?£11 million from UEFA for the Champions League/UEFA Cup and Ã?£10 million in additional gate receipts due to the number of games played. Net Operating expenses increased by Ã?£13.7 million - This is mainly due to a Ã?£10 million increase in staff costs (see next section). Amortisation (write-off) of playersââ?¬â?¢ values increased by Ã?£3.2 million ââ?¬â?? the cost of players is written off over the period of their contracts and the purchase of players costing over Ã?£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 yearââ?¬â?¢s operating loss of Ã?£5.1 million becoming an operating profit of Ã?£641,000. Interest payable of Ã?£1.7 million, an increase of Ã?£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 Ã?£1.1 million. The sale of players, primarily Hutton, generated a profit of Ã?£7.7 million which meant that we made a profit before tax for the year of Ã?£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 Ã?£10 million, from Ã?£24 million to Ã?£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 Ã?£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 playersââ?¬â?¢ bonuses. Net debt The net debt has increased by Ã?£5 million to Ã?£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 Ã?£10.6 million on players and only received Ã?£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 yearââ?¬â?¢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 Ã?£9 million and Sebo was sold for Ã?£1 million. The clubââ?¬â?¢s website states that ââ?¬Å?It is understood that the (Hutton) transfer fee could top Ã?£9millionââ?¬Â. The strange thing is that the proceeds reflected in the accounts only come to Ã?£8.7 million. What has happened to the missing Ã?£1.3 million? Perhaps the widely reported ââ?¬Å?pay-offââ?¬Â to Hutton of around Ã?£1 million was made by Spurs as a ââ?¬Å?golden helloââ?¬Â 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 Ã?£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 Bainââ?¬â?¢s emoluments for the year were Ã?£668,000, an increase of 87% over the previous year! In last yearââ?¬â?¢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 Ã?£393,000 in 2007, which was a big increase on 2006, possibly because of a comparison with Bainââ?¬â?¢s package, with Lawwell arguably having greater responsibilities and autonomy. It is presumed that the large increase in Bainââ?¬â?¢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 ââ?¬Å?depreciated replacement costââ?¬Â 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 Ã?£100,000, but it would cost Ã?£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 Ã?£100,000 but itââ?¬â?¢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 ââ?¬Å?recoverable amountââ?¬Â (although this value is exactly the same as the amount in last yearââ?¬â?¢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 Ã?£120 million. A valuation was carried out using last yearââ?¬â?¢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 Ã?£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 Ã?£1.2 million are less than the prior year of Ã?£1.9 million, and this has been a steady trend of reduction in services from the peak of Ã?£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 Ã?£50,000 of shares issued during the year in respect of the Rangers Supporters Trustââ?¬â?¢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.

My son learned Texas Hold 'em when he was 5.

Nice one.

We are just going to end up going back over the ground that was covered in the previous thread on this. However I strongly disagree with your post, Pete. Rangers have always been a strong unionist club and the traditions are numerous and longstanding (picture of the Queen in the dressing room, the loving cup etc, etc.). Part of the unionist link has also been connections with Northern Ireland. Part of the problem is that people with an agenda try and lump everything related to Ulster into the sectarian bag. You're doing that yourself to a certain extent by claiming the only reason why there is an Ulster connection is because of Celtic, which I would refute. There is nothing wrong with being connected to Ulster and celebrating that connection, whether it is with the wonderful Ulster Scots banner, the Ulster day last week, or the various songs that are sung celebrating its history etc. F.T.P. and TBB have nothing to do with Ulster (TBB is actually a Glasgow song), and we mustn't allow any mention of it to be instantly made negative. Saturday was a positive day, and positives should be celebrated and encouraged. The GAWA realised that and have totally transformed themselves. People should be encouraged to consider this view (although there are right and wrong ways of doing that) and not just listen to the one-sided press that we have in this country at the moment.

My feeling is that this is the case, although I hope that we are wrong.

Agreed. Perhaps the likes of Aaron, Fleck and McMillan aren't ready for the first team yet.

So Koki Mizuno is only good enough to make the subs bench of the reserves. I seem to recall that he was given a work permit because he was a "special case". Someone obviously lied at the tribunal. Hopefully that will be taken account of at the next such trbunal that Celtic have? Then again, with Pat Nevin, Gerry Collins and Peter Cormack on it, I doubt much evidence was actually presented. Surely his work permit should be withdrawn as he is obviously here on false pretences? It makes a mockery of the whole process.