boss

Muir isn't a director of MIH, although he is a director of PPG.

Here's an article I did on CL earnings: http://home.rangersmedia.co.uk/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=122%3Arangers-champions-league-earnings-200910&catid=41%3Afinances&Itemid=1 Rangersââ?¬â?¢ Champions League Earnings 2009/10 Thursday, 21 January 2010 12:46 Boss You know me, I like numbers. So I was intrigued to read an article topping the prestigious Newsnow rankings which claimed that Rangers had ââ?¬Å?received more than ââ??¬30 million from participation in this season's Champions Leagueââ?¬Â. ââ?¬Å?Oh really?ââ?¬Â I thought, ââ?¬Å?Perhaps Iââ?¬â?¢m going slightly mad. Surely the real number is little more than half that?ââ?¬Â I dusted own my abacus, lubricated its beads, looked out my blue plastic spade (I use it to build snowcastles), and started digging. UEFA donââ?¬â?¢t make it particularly easy to work out the exact numbers. The last download on UEFAââ?¬â?¢s website, detailing all the teams in the CL and their share of the various pots of money, seems to be for 2004/05. But if you dig deep enough, the information is available for 2007/08 ââ?¬â?? but itââ?¬â?¢s hidden away on page 53 of an obscure document. Also of assistance was a UEFA article published earlier this month giving some details of their ââ?¬Ë?revenue distribution systemââ?¬â?¢ for 2009/10. 1. Every team in the CL receives a ââ??¬3.8m ââ?¬Ë?participation bonusââ?¬â?¢. 2. Every team in the CL receives a ââ??¬3.3m ââ?¬Ë?match bonusââ?¬â?¢ being ââ??¬550,000 for each of six matches played. (Iââ?¬â?¢ve no idea why this isnââ?¬â?¢t just lumped into the ââ?¬Ë?participation bonusââ?¬â?¢.) 3. Winning a match in the CL gains ââ??¬800,000 ââ?¬Ë?performance bonusââ?¬â?¢, and a draw gains ââ??¬400,000. Depressingly we only earned ââ??¬800,000 from this pot for our two draws. 4. The ââ?¬Ë?market poolââ?¬â?¢ is where things start getting interesting. UEFA has confirmed this pot to be worth an estimated ââ??¬337.8m. This is distributed according to the proportional value of each countryââ?¬â?¢s TV market, and split (be reference to domestic league positions) between the participating clubs from that country. The total pot for 2007/08 was ââ??¬277m, of which the ââ?¬Ë?Scotlandââ?¬â?¢ pot was ââ??¬6.453m, or 2.33%. The respective numbers for 2004/05 were: ââ??¬208m, ââ??¬6.308m, 3.03%. So between 2004/05 and 2007/08 although the pot size increased significantly, the ââ?¬Ë?Scotlandââ?¬â?¢ element only increased marginally. It is therefore prudent to assume, in the absence of any published figures, that the ââ?¬Ë?Scotlandââ?¬â?¢ pot wonââ?¬â?¢t have benefitted much from the further ââ??¬61m pot increase for 2009/10. Letââ?¬â?¢s say the ââ?¬Ë?Scotlandââ?¬â?¢ pot was ââ??¬7m (plus or minus ââ??¬0.5m) ââ?¬â?? the good news is that we donââ?¬â?¢t have to share that pot with them! 5. There are further pots of money available for each round thereafter; sadly thatââ?¬â?¢s not something that concerns us this year. The total amount we will receive from UEFA will therefore be approximately ââ??¬14.9m, which translates to Ã?£13.4m. We also get to keep our own gate receipts, including hospitality. With three home matches attracting an average attendance of just under 40,000, this will have generated not much more than Ã?£4m. We will of course have the matchday expenses to deduct from this. We also have the playersââ?¬â?¢ bonuses to pay; given the performances I hope that amounts to no more than loose change! (I understand that the ridiculous bonus system of 2007/08 has been revised.) So to sum up, Rangers will have earned perhaps Ã?£15m-Ã?£16m net from the CL this year, which is little more than half the ââ?¬Å?more than ââ??¬30mââ?¬Â stated in the erroneous article. So Iââ?¬â?¢m not going slightly mad after all. Numbers are such fun, arenââ?¬â?¢t they?

Happens every year. June is always the best position for the debt - season ticket money for the next season has been banked. I expect net debt to be �£25m+ at June 2010.

Bluedell needs to take deferred season ticket money fully into account.

Net debt isn't down to �£24m currently. I think it's more than �£30m.

To be even clearer I did not retract or apologise for the factual stuff I wrote about Duffy - that's because it's all true, and freely available from Companies House. So the FF author's conclusion that I apologised when I supposedly found out that Duffy was using a stockbroking friend doesn't make any sense. I still have absolutely no idea whether that person acts for Duffy and I would be astonished if he would breach client confidentiality rules and tell me anyway. Also, I have never met, spoken to, had email or any other contact with Donald Muir ever, or indeed Martin Bain for that matter. I neither move in these cirlces nor wish to.

I finished the article on Friday and PM'd it to an RM Admin. Apparently he was out on Friday night and didn't get a chance to put it online until Saturday afternoon. Sorry if that doesn't tie in with your "precise time for maximum effect" theory. It certainly doesn't seem very precise to me. I was the one who ran the proposed Statement passed RM Admin, then started the "10 am" thread last Monday, and made sure the Mods kept the thread constructive and free from abuse. There were some aspects of the Protest that I was concerned about and said so well in advance of my article. Indeed, my article specifically stated that the Rangers board probably deserved the Protest, and twice congratulated the orgainsers for the work they had done. I'm sorry if none of this backs up your vitriol. I guess folks will just have to make their minds up one way or another.

Where in the article do I "proclaim Muir as the hero who kept the squad together"?

Where did I say he was? Read what I wrote, not what you think I wrote or what you think I should have written. In a parallel universe, we'd do a lot worse than appoint Muir as Chief Executive. I wrote it, so of course I'm sure about it. You really shouldn't believe all of the disinformation that is being spread. Lol - no turnaround specialist is going to care too much about how he is viewed. He wouldn't be very good at his job if he did! Muir has a job to do - if he upsets folk along the way, then such is life. No it doesn't. You keep repeating that but can come up with no piece of evidence to support it. Those of us that believe it have the audited Accounts, AJ's statement at the AGM, and the absence of a January firesale to back us up. You'd need to take that up with the author. There's lots of different views allowed to be expressed on RM, and no official party line. Just a wee bit worried, perhaps unneccesarily, that some will be vituperative and divisive. A bit more openness wouldn't have gone amiss. Isn't that what is being requested of the Club? Ask him. Frustration?

Click it? I wrote it.

Eh, I think we are all well aware of that, thanks. You're post was about RFC. You posted: "My own take is that Muir is Murray's doppelganger at Ibrox." Utterly wrong. Your source is guff. I'll give you a clue: The "plc" at the end of The Rangers Football Club plc" stands for "public limited company". Note for wabashcannonball: "Really must do very much better and must stop questioning boss". :box:

Eh, your link is to the ICAS paper: Non-Executive Directors Their role and responsibilities in a private company Rangers is a public company. Note to wabashcannonball: Must do better.

Cracker - who made that up?

AJ made it clear at the AGM that Muir was one of 2 MIH appointees (SDM had wanted 4) and so is on Rangers board to look after MIH's position/shareholding.

Bluedell, what is your evidence for MIH having defaulted on their loan repayments? It's a very strong statement to make. If MIH had been unable to meet their loan repayments then they were insolvent (definition: unable to pay debts as and when they fall due). Keevins had to make a humiliating apology yesterday for saying something similar. Now I'm not expecting a humiliating apology from you. I just don't believe there is evidence to back up your statement.

Absolutely correct.

All this happy talk is way over my head. I thought Tupperware referred to the running shoes Alf put on when he was being tough of the track. Must be my age. I'll stick to the traditional values ... of debit and credit.

Read it.

Good luck Nithsdale and Tannochside - keep up the good fight.

If the NOTW did make up the quotes surely there is no way they would risk going to the PCC. The only reasons there could be for no apology are if either the quotes were true, or because they weren't asked for one (perhaps because the quotes were true).

Haven't heard (or seen) any retraction. Does that mean they haven't challenged TOSIT quotes?

There wasn't necessarily something afoot when the announcement was made (or indeed now). I did an article at the time: http://home.rangersmedia.co.uk/index.php/articles-mainmenu-2/1-club/1129-rangers-fc-statement-re-takeover-code-just-what-does-it-mean Rule 2.2 (f) (i) could have been invoked when there was 'rumour and speculation' after MIH formally stated they were seeking a buyer (their holding being >30%). http://www.thetakeoverpanel.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2008/11/code.pdf

: : : :

Oi, ya baldy (*1) tim (*2) - up yours (*3). Just giving the troops an example of what is not allowed. :admin:

What is the world coming to? I find myself agreeing with UCB and Tannochside in the same thread. :cheers: I feel ever so slightly moist.