bossy
-
Posts
486 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Everything posted by bossy
-
My expectation is that the minute will merely confirm what we already know. However, there could be a couple of wee gems in there. Sometimes people give stuff away in meetings especially if you have a couple of guys with a wee bit of experience asking the questions.
-
I don't think it matters whether this individual or that individual feel that he doesn't speak for them. What does matter is that the main supporter's organisations are working closely together and do have a unity of purpose. While they may not speak for certain individuals, they do speak for a lot of supporters and I think that Robertson has correctly gauged the mood of a great many fans. And the fact that they are working together will sway a lot of supporters who may not be happy with the way things are going but have had no real focus for their disquiet until now.
-
I submitted my question (actually several connected questions) to the RST. In a meeting such as this, questions need to be asked which actually have a chance of getting answered. The Board and management know that the fans are very unhappy with all the bonuses, dividends and fees. Bringing it up again in this meeting will not get any answers but will set a tone of hostility that will make it hard to get answers to any of the other questions as well. The focus of my questions is how the club plan to deal with the £14 million revenue/outgoings gap, where new money will come from and what is the rationale behind AGM resolutions 9 & 10. Even if I am personally very unhappy with this Board, it would be wrong for the Supporter's Associations to go into the meeting and announce that they support McColl and want the current incumbents out (even if they do). We cannot foresee just how the AGM will go. If Mather & Co. win, then we need to consider that we may have to work with them going forward. So a fairly delicate balancing act is required.
-
As a support, a great many of us love a sugar daddy. The prospect of a rich guy coming in and splashing the millions enthralls us. The support loved David Murray, most of us loved Whyte when we thought he was loaded and there are plenty who salivate at the idea of David King coming in with his millions. What we don't seem to love is respectable businessmen who don't promise to 'splash the cash' and who only offer proper corporate governance and a well run club. Neither do we seem to love the idea that the supporters should take ownership of our own destiny by buying a large percentage of the shares. As an online supporting community, we would rather turn on our own and engage in vicious infighting than take constructive measures to secure our future.
-
HRH The Prince of Wales thanks the Rangers Support
bossy replied to Steve1872's topic in Rangers Chat
Doesn't work that way. Prince Charles will be king if he outlives his mother. But he might have to wait quite a few years and by then he might not have too long on the throne. -
Great article Andy. It deserves a wider audience.
-
Behave yourself
-
Kewl, thanks. I have been a member since year 1 and I am a life member. I find Gordon to be very responsive (as is Christine).
-
Is there a new Chairman or is it still the same person?
-
I think the requisitioners felt that they had a deal with the Board. They would abandon the EGM and instead all matters would be decided at the AGM. Subsequently the Board either reneged on the deal or the requistioners misunderstood its terms so that there would be no vote on appointing new directors at the AGM. The requisitioners have stated that they have the support of at least 28% of the shareholders. It could well be more given the strenuous efforts of the Board in preventing this from coming to a vote.
-
How did McMurdo go from being a well-respected, balanced and interesting blogger to being the mouthpiece for the Board and people like Ahmad?
-
Requisitioners go to Court of Session - Adjourned until 14th
bossy replied to forlanssister's topic in Rangers Chat
Could be to allow the two sides to reach a compromise or because the Board needed time to mount a defence. -
Requisitioners go to Court of Session - Adjourned until 14th
bossy replied to forlanssister's topic in Rangers Chat
Adjourned until a week on Monday. -
Requisitioners go to Court of Session - Adjourned until 14th
bossy replied to forlanssister's topic in Rangers Chat
I think the number of supporters who might be lost would be small and especially if the fan who as nominated had impeccable business and supporting credentials. And they do exist. -
Requisitioners go to Court of Session - Adjourned until 14th
bossy replied to forlanssister's topic in Rangers Chat
I predicted a couple of days ago that this one would end up in court. Which is unfortunate because no matter what the result, it is not good for Rangers. This board seems desperate to hang on to power by any means possible. Which begs the question as to whether they have a majority of the votes on their side. Because, if they did, there would be no need for all the twisting and turning that they are engaged in. I had a conversation with someone who was very close to the process and he felt that the vote could be close should the Easdales choose to back the board. But I think that both sides have discounted the impact of the support and the shares the support owns in this contest. And it would seem to me that the support is beginning to favour the requistioners. It is a matter of regret that the McColl team have not embraced the support more openly and fully. They had the opportunity to ask the main supporter's organisations to nominate a director and didn't do that. I think that is an opportunity missed even if Malcolm Murray, who is on the slate, is openly supportive of getting a fan rep on the Board. -
That wasn't clear to me from the notes. It is stated more clearly in the business review. In any event, it just makes the revenue/outgoings gap worse. I'm not an accountant. But I have plenty of experience in what a business needs to do to be successful. In this respect, Rangers still have a lot to do and are going to need more cash. And I am not confident that this board has the means to raise the sort of cash we will need to complete the journey.
-
I am trying to give management the benefit of the doubt. One-off costs in Note 5 not counting the release of negative goodwill was £4.261 million. I just rounded it to £5 million. The 10% off costs is another example of giving management the benefit of doubt. Agree on the £19 million (my mistake). Given that season ticket revenue was £8 million, I am curious as to where the other £5 million in gate receipts and hospitality came from. The more so as we had 38,000 season tickets sold and an average attendance of 39,335. There is clearly scope to increase season ticket revenue. An increase in the average price to £250 would yield another £1.4 million. I have tried to be generous to management and make best-case projections which assumes they are competent. But it doesn't change the fundamental problem which is the gap in revenue and outgoings and which is eating into our cash.
-
My back of an envelope calculations are that we should have around £29 million in cash for this financial year. This number comes from £11 in the bank, plus gate receipts and other revenues as identified in the annual report, less those gate receipts already counted in the cash in bank number. That £29 million contains an assumption that management can increase overall revenue by 20% during the year. On the outgoings side, we had around £33 million in cash going out last year (see note 3). Assuming around £5 of that was for one off costs and assuming that management can take another 10% off the cost base then we are looking at outgoings of around £25 million. So, at the end of next year we are still solvent but most of the cash is gone. Our longer term problem is how we grow revenue and/or cut costs so that we are not running an annual operating loss. Note 2 to the annual report gives our revenue at £19 million. But we also know that includes some season ticket revenue for this season. So our annual revenue is overstated by around £4 million. Even if we can grow the annual revenue to £18-£20 million we still have a £5 million gap. And this assumes pretty stellar performance from management. I just don't see how we can avoid going back to investors for more money towards the end of next year. And the problem there is that the institutional investors are backing McColl/Murray while the changing of NOMAD once again will not endear the investing community. In addition, the current board are doing a grand job of alienating the support. We really need a board that has the respect and trust of both the support and the investing community. Right now I am not sure that this board has either
-
Just a point on the sponsorship money. Stockbridge in his report (annual report, page 10) says about it "sponsorship is forecast to be £0.5m better than last [season]". Last season it was £819k. So that means for next season we are looking at £1.3 million from sponsorship. Nice to have but it isn't going to plug the revenue/outgoings gap.
-
I think we are getting caught up in the minutia of the accounts and missing the big picture. My worry is the rather large gap between revenue and costs, how long the cash will last and where funding is going to come from when (not if) we do run out of money.
-
How do you think the mhedia would react if they came out and said ... "we have this accountancy thing which is really a tax dodge to allow Charles Green to pay tax at a lower rate"?
-
Demonising the fans is not really defending himself. Is it?
-
I think that management were hoping that merchandise sales would take off and we could get some of the way back to where they were pre-JJB. Clearly that has not happened.
-
The issue is not so much whether a new Board or new CEO would achieve better but whether you need a new Board to attract new investment always assuming we need it. Because if we need new cash and cannot attract the investment then we have a very big problem. As to how the club is being run, I honestly don't have enough visibility. I do think we have an issue with the amount of fees, commissions and interest being paid out to 'related' parties. But my main concern is how management are handling non-football revenue streams such as merchandise. That, for me, is absolutely key because match revenue (season tickets, etc.) will never be enough to finance the kind of team we want to see on the park.
-
Okay ... several different issues here. First, costs. The given that payroll is our biggest cost (£18 million) then how do you get costs down without reducing the number of players, reducing salaries and or layoffs? Certainly there are also operating costs; the cost of running Ibrox and Auchenhowie for example. But those are costs that are less controllable (e.g. cost of electricity). Second, revenue. Very hard to increase gate revenue for this year because half of it has already been sold. So you have to look to hospitality, sponsorship, merchandise, etc. But can you increase that by £16 million? I think they probably can close the gap but not by £16 million. £5 or £6 million maybe. So where does the NOMAD come in? When you need to raise funds in the capital markets. Now we know from what management have said that we only have £2.5 million in borrowing available and no bank borrowing . So what happens if we run out of cash next summer? We go back to the capital markets for, say, £10 million. But the institutions like to work with a blue chip NOMAD like Cenkos. So having the wrong NOMAD will make it harder to raise cash from them. And if we cannot raise cash through a share issue then we will need to look at asset sales. And the only assets we have are players, Ibrox and Auchenhowie. Or maybe management will surprise me.