bossy

Given the extremely difficult circumstances of the last year, it is hardly fair to condemn McCoist for his performance so far.

Former Prime Minister Harold Wilson once said that a week was a long time in politics. Well, a couple of years can be a long time in football. First some home truths. The current financial and business model in Scottish and indeed European football is unsustainable. Celtic's progress in the Champions League may paper over their cracks for a while but they still need group stages of this competition every year just to break even. Celtic's poor gates for SPL matches this season suggest that season ticket sales could take a serious hit next year and, if they miss the CL group stages as well, then they are likely to face some pressing financial decisions. It is worth remembering that, between 2000 and 2010, Celtic lost over £28 million pounds so their vaunted financial health only looks good in comparison to those who are even worse off than them rather than in its own right. If you add to that the current uncertainty in the SPL with clubs like Aberdeen and Hibs posting losses and Hearts apparently on the verge of bankruptcy then there really is no room for complacency. Scottish football needs major surgery if it is to remain competitive. Unfortunately, it would appear that vested interests are standing in the way of this. The financial and business model really needs to change. Our own misfortune was ample proof of that. But it would appear that, in the rush to give us a good kicking, nobody actually noticed that this was a wake up call to everyone. I would suggest that the first club that changes the model and embraces financial sanity will be the one that emerges strongest in a few years time. And, as football restructures, that strength will be both financial and on the park. The changes that are needed are not rocket science but they do require good management and some serious investment in youth development, merchandising, catering, hospitality and media content delivery to name but a few. It is about building up the ‘brand’ in a world where football is a major player in the global 'entertainment' industry. And it is about being part of structural changes to European football if and when they come about. Manchester United and Barcelona understand this. But very few others have embraced it. I would suggest that those clubs that get on the bandwagon early will be the ones who can become the major players in a few years time. So what kind of investment are we talking about here? Well, if we are honest, we are talking about millions. Probably £30 million just to get the ball rolling. And while you are doing that, the club cannot be posting year on year losses or spending 60% plus of turnover in the team. If you want to invest in the team then you need to build profitability and turnover. And I can only think of one team in Scotland that has brought its wage bill down to around 30% of turnover, has £30 million in the bank and has publicly announced that it intends to invest in the above areas. Of course it is still early days and Green and his management team have still to prove that they can deliver. But Green has been saying all the right things and his refusal to sign a new TV deal is instructive given the importance of media rights in the digital world. Green and his investors have every incentive to be successful because it will make them very rich (or richer than they already are). And, if they are then I would suggest the potential is there for a new golden era on the park for Rangers. He who laughs last laughs best.

Because they are obsessed with us.

Far be for me to throw cold water on a perfectly good rant ...... but ....... 1. Accountancy Standards are not set by auditors 2. Net bank debt does not equal net debt. 3. If, as the author proclaims, all the information is hidden, how is it that he is able to give the page reference to where the information is fully disclosed?

I will hold you to that

Not really if you think about it. We were turning over around £50 million before Whyte. And that was with a bunch of revenue activities being outsourced. So, for example, before it was outsourced, merchandise had a turnover of around £20 million a year. After outsourcing we only saw £3 million a year although that was all profit. So, bring merchandise in-house and you add £17 million to that £50 million (assuming we can recover that level). Then add catering and the other stuff that we outsourced and you have a few million to add on top of that. Then add some growth due to competent management plus an expansion of paid media activities and suddenly you are not that far off £100 million. The problem under Murray was that there was no growth and no focus on running Rangers as a business. So our turnover stagnated around that £50 million mark. Get some decent management and I think we can do a lot better.

But so should our turnover. If, in three years, we have a turnover of £100 million then that will finance a wage bill of around £33 million. Which is not far from where we were before. Get the business right and we can afford the sort of players we need to drive some success in Europe with breaking the bank. That, for me, is Green's job.

Fundamentally, we are no different to any other business. But you don't have to invest though there are plenty of institutions who seem willing. You can continue being a supporter and, like a customer of any other business, you can always vote with your feet. But the support didn't vote with their feet when Murray was mismanaging us into the ground so why would they for Green? Especially if there is a perception that he is doing a decent job.

Honestly ... they are not out of the norm.

You mean like we held Murray to account when he was pissing away £140 million?

I don't know the answer to that one yet. But I do think he has had a reasonable amount of success in stabilising the situation. The proof will be in where we are in five years. I don't trust Green any more than I would trust any other CEO .... and I have seen plenty. But he will want to make money and he will be jealous of his reputation as someone who can make things happen at the highest level. The best way for him to do both is to make Rangers successful. I am reassured that we have a broad based shareholding with quite a few institutional investors. They will be far less patient than the average football fan when it comes to the overall running of the business. Green will be more accountable than either Whyte or Murray before him.

Ciao bella

The whole point of remunerating them in shares is as an incentive to make the business successful and the shares worth a lot. If they just get a salary then there is less incentive. Sure, they can get fired if they don't perform but there is no big upside if the do. With shares there is a huge upside for them if the club and the business is successful. Thus, as the theory goes, they will work harder and perform better.

Personally, I'm not shocked by what Green & Co. are making out of this. Seems to be fairly standard from what I have seen in industry. To get top quality management you need to pay the going rate. In fact, £350k is not that much but the options make it worthwhile. What matters is not the fact of paying this kind of money but making sure these guys perform. And if they do, the value they will bring will far outweigh what they make. But, we also need to be able to get rid of them when they don't perform. We were not able to get rid of Murray when he lost over £140 million in just a few years and Bain never justified his salary either. Failure of the support to invest in this IPO will make it much harder for us to hold management to account. That, in my view is the big downside of all this.

I never want to see a single guy running the club ever again. Guys like David Murray are always a deal or two away from disaster. I was warning of that over on FF when Murray started diving into commercial property with the bank's money. I would much rather have a diverse ownership ... including a good chunk of the support .... and a management which is answerable to investors. If we had that 20 years ago, Murray might not have been allowed to lose £140 million plus in just a few years.

Okay .... here is the case for the defence ...... I don't think the institutional investors would be putting money into Rangers if they did not think we were a good bet. Neither do they think that Green & Co. are about to do a runner. They will have done their research. Rangers are a classic turnaround ... a great brand with a very large following but which has been mismanaged into the ground. There is a ton of 'low hanging fruit' which can be turned into cash .... e.g. merchandise, catering, hospitality, media rights .... all it takes is decent management. All that limits the downside for the investors. And then there is the upside potential ..... the big bet ..... Suppose European football reconstruction does come in the next 5 to 10 years. If Rangers were in the EPL we would be worth what a Man Utd. or Chelsea is worth. In a European league we might be worth half that. But it is still 10 times what we are worth today. That is huge upside potential. The institutions aren't stupid. They see value and I am sure that Green and his original investors see it too. And the good news for us ..... to make a ton of money they need to make us succesfull at home and in Europe. And we want that too.

Seriously ... I don't think Green needs supporter investment to cover the IPO although he probably sees it as a 'nice to have' and a good way of showing his commitment to the support. I suspect he already has plenty of institutional investment available to snap up those shares that the support doesn't buy. And .... if institutions are buying then it suggests that they like what they are seeing and consider Rangers to be a good bet.

Since when do gas fires have bars?

Green is probably more interested in having institutional investors than supporter investment. Institutions are easier to handle and tend to be rational. Comparisons with Celtic are not especially helpful. Different times and a different situation. Even so, I believe that their fans only raised around £2.5 million and the balance was made up by Desmond.

I was never a huge fan of AJ to be honest. Too close to David Murray IMHO. But I never doubted that he was a Rangers man.

Times change. Sometimes you have to live with the reality you have and not necessarily the one you might have preferred.

It isn't the fact that he was asked - which he probably was - it is the fact that he agreed. But you would be underwhelmed if it was Walter Smith or John Greig.

So there is no point splashing out in the transfer market this year is there (embargo permitting)?

I would rather the 'money on tap' was invested in revenue generating activities so that we have enough income going forward to be both competitive on the park and financially secure.

The objective this year is to win Div 3, not the CL.