franker

It's quite alarming to me the number of supporters that want to see the back of SDM so desperately, that they'd be delighted if he just handed over all his shares to a new custodian or group for NOTHING thinking that THAT would be in the best interests of the club.

 

Let�s look at where we are. A Chairman who wants out and is no longer willing to invest more cash.(his prerogative) Since making public his intention to sell up no philanthropic billionaire has surfaced to do a deal. Well placed sources have said that consortia have spoken to him but have been unwilling to match his asking price. Sources close to Murray have hinted that the consortia he has spoken to do not have sufficient funds to pay what he is looking for and have enough left over to give the club financial security. In the interim, the financial situation at the club is deteriorating. In those circumstances are there any alternatives?. What I have done is to suggest one. If Murray issued enough shares to take him into a minority position, a consortium by buying these shares would have enough capital to secure the clubs future and invest in revenue generating schemes. Murray, being a minority shareholder, would no longer be responsible for Rangers allowing him to focus on improving the financial situation at debt laden MIH that despite recent utterances must be giving him cause for concern.(in the current financial climate he is not alone)

What does Murray do with his shares? Maybe give them to his son at Murray Capital where he houses all his other minority stake holdings? As stated above it is only a suggestion to our current situation and i would be interested to hear your ideas

 

 

 

Personally, I think that would be nothing more than a risky gamble & I don't think that gambling with the future of the club is a particularly smart move if we want it to still exist in 10 years time. No matter how well thought out & planned, no matter how good the intentions of any new owner or group of owners, there's no guarantee of success, no guarantee of improvement or of secured longevity. I ask myself if the club will still exist in 10 years time if SDM sticks to his guns & stays on as owner & chairman, with our support & with a change of personnel such as the chief executive position for a start & I honestly think the answer is a definite YES!

 

As Bluedell states further on in this thread where will MIH be with the debts they are carrying in 2 years never mind 10?

Despite what we're told, or should I say is being systematically hammered into or consciousness by some about the downward spiral of the club for the last 10 years of Murray's tenure & the looming & inevitable collapse of the club if he doesn't GTF asap, I honestly think that the club would be in better hands if he were to stay & that the club will undoubtedly still be here in 10 years time if he does.

 

Looking back over the last 8 years I would have to take issue with you on your last sentence in the context of what state we would be in

 

 

That's not to say that I think Murray is the only answer, but without the right person, with the right amount of money to invest (IE- A LOT) & the right passion for Rangers Football Club to be a success, I honestly think that the club is in safer hands with him than it would be with a small group of semi-wealthy investors & a share scheme whereby the club's financial security could well be significantly less than it is currently.

With the debt heading towards 30 million and SDM unwilling to input any more cash that is quite a statement.

 

I actually think it's quite reassuring for the longevity of the club that Murray isn't prepared to sell to just anyone or worse - give away his shares to a group of people with big ideas & no serious cash to back them up & secure the future of the club. I'm reading the likes of Cammy & others saying that they fear the club won't be here in a few years. Well in my mind we need to be careful not to push Murray over the edge because I personally think that he will do everything in his power to save this club & to secure that it's future is safe, even if he needed to take drastic measures elsewhere in his business portfolio to generate emergency funding for RFC.

With MIH having huge debts on its books particularly relating to commercial property, a field in which companies better capitalised than his are having to raise capital to avoid breaching covenants are you really confidant that he would be in a position to generate emergency funding for Rangers??

Excellent stuff mate....

 

Where is our hero on a white charger? Surely the millionaires who follow our team must be as upset as the rest of us?

A white charger? Kenny Scott will have you banned for that language........

As for our wealthy supporters, we all know some have spoken to SDM but for various reasons the deal has not happened. What i am suggesting is an alternative to a private deal. We need as a business a large cash injection and the sooner the better. In this instance i would like those who tried to broker a deal with Murray to test the water for public support for a share issue. I know many will say the last share issue was largely ignored but a new share issue with the result if successful meaning a change of ownership, could in my opinion turn out substantial support.

... Character, Discipline, Strength, Fitness, Innovation, Technique, Imagination, Ambition, Consistency, Motivation, Quality and Bottle.

 

All necessary virtues sadly lacking from the players and management team at our club.

 

Negativity is our buzzword and with a chairman who is AWOL and a chief executive who is incompetent, this has spread to the fans and is a factor that we see not only in online forums but across the board at Ibrox and beyond.

 

Is our future that bleak? Who can change it? Who really wants to?

 

It's no longer a case of 'Hullo Hullo' but 'Cheerio, Cheerio'. 'Ready' has never been more inappropriate.

 

One thing you were always assured as a Rangers fan was that the club were financially secure even when the team were poor. The board of directors in charge since i started attending in the 1960s may have not always got it right with managerial appointments, but they never ever put the club into a financial straightjacket until now. The club requires substantial investment if it is to progress and in reference to your questions above, without this investment the future is bleak.

Who can change it? Well the fans can be part of that change if someone with the correct credentials steps up to the plate. As for who really wants to? With the right leadership i would say the majority of the support.

That is a fantastic point and one that not only affects the media, but has seen a decline in the circulation of the match day programme and the Rangers News. Most fans would rather spend their hard-earned cash on publications like Follow Follow, No1 Fanzine and The Rangers Historian - all publications written by the fans, for the fans.

 

These publications may not contain the prose as the newspapers, but the readers can identify and sympathise with the contributors, even if they do not agree with a specific article or viewpoint.

 

 

Cammy F

In a similar vein yesterdays article on fanzines on the BBC website may interest you. The following comment by Professor Chris Atton was particularily significant.

"They show how fans of all kinds of popular culture can become experts with as much insight as professional journalists."

Try telling that to Spiers

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/7908705.stm

The problem with such a rumour is that if it were true, there's no way the paper would wait a week or longer to expose the story for fear of being trumped.

 

Boruc is daft and his behaviour rather eccentric at times but I doubt even he would be silly enough to get involved in something like that - Eastern European background or not.

Agree, if Boruc was up to anything the press would run with it tomorrow rather than wait till Sunday.....

Am I right in saying though that only the 51% sold in 2004 was owned by the Murray group? I think the rest was owned by someone else.

 

I don't believe it was ever worth as much as �£3m. Given the drop in related party transactions in the accounts, it appears to have only been worth around �£2m.

From memory two directors of Azure put money in along with Murrays investment vehicle. As for the 3 million annual figure, the Business Am journo would only repeat i presume what Murrays relative would tell him. Surely you are not suggesting someone with the Murray dna would exagerate?..........

Guys, anybody got any info in the commercials relating to Azure deal with Rangers? Length of contract?

 

Or good estimates would be helpful too!

An article at the time in the now defunct Business AM newspaper stated that Murrays relation who formed Azure, was awarded a 5 year contract valued at 3 million a year. Azures finance was provided by Charlotte Ventures(now Murray Capital)

As stated by Bluedell it was sold to Elior in two tranches, 51% initially with the balance a few years later.

Sanjeev, the person who claimed in print, in the Herald that it was Rangers fans who had racially abused Mark Walters on his Rangers debut at Parkhead - liars from cradle to grave.

 

Cammy F

Sanjeev was contradicted by his brother Hardeep in this article in the Scotland on Sunday

"ll never forget the Rangers winger Mark Walters having to move armfuls of bananas Celtic fans had thrown at him while they chanted like monkeys. Even a few Rangers fans sent racist chants his way. The irony that they, the bigoted chanters, were the ones who had failed to evolve was altogether lost on them."

Another quote from the same article-:

"My Rangers top was passed round the changing rooms and spat on by 27 boys'"

http://news.scotsman.com/hardeepsinghkohli/My-Rangers-top-was-passed.3315922.jp

On the one hand we have an immigrant who came to Scotland to earn a living playing professional football and on the other we have a young Scotsman playing in his homeland fulfilling the same ambition.

The immigrant has had death threats, had to have personal security appointed by the club, his house and car vandalised on more than one occasion, and a ditty about being shot by the IRA sang composed conducted and executed by Celtic fans. This disgusting treatment of an incomer to the ââ?¬Å?best wee country in the worldââ?¬Â shames all decent people.

The Scotsman has had one urine extracting ditty sang on Saturday by Rangers fans that in effect regurgitated the plastic paddy critique of players of the past like Ray Houghton and Tony Cascarino. Is telling in song, a Scotsman to go home, knowing his home is in Scotland by Scottish fans at a game in Scotland, worth mentioning? Well it is if you compare the reaction to both situations.

We have had past and present MPs proclaiming outrage, radio bulletins highlighting the disgraceful treatment of a player, broadsheets and tabloids urging action by the judicial and football authorities and the head of the SFA now declaring that " it's got to be stamped out�

Any fair minded person would draw the conclusion that the above reaction would have been to the treatment of the immigrant to this country. We know that is not the case. Our challenge is what are we going to do about it?

Franker, the �£6.5m isn't just a throwaway comment by Nick Peel. It is in an official announcement to the stock exchange (albeit the Plus one), and therefore has legal implications.

 

The article that Frankie quotes shows that the �£6.5m equates to what you way is �£1.5m. It appears that the directors may have been misleading the stock exchange which has serious implications (unless I'm missing something).

Bluedell, It is all down to interpretation and to do so you have to look at your nearest competitors for a comparison. Celtics deal with Nike for UK and worldwide distribuition, name on shirts etc was for a reputed 5 million per annum.

In addition to that Celtic buy from Nike to sell through their own outlets and partnerships ie Debenhams and the profit on those sales you would add to the Nike payment to give an overall net contribution to their accounts.

Rangers on the other hand pre JJB retained UK distribution rights when they done the Umbro deal and only sold overseas rights(a far smaller volume of sales). I can not see Umbro paying us 6.5 million for that when Nike are paying 5 million for UK & world rights can you?

"It is anticipated that these arrangements will contribute GBP6.5m annually through the Club's retail activities. "

will contribute what-income? or net profit? In my interpretation it would be income.(and technically his stock exchange statement would be correct)

Tell you what, if you are going to the AGM tomorrow why dont we toss to see who gets to ask our David to clarify this.(on second thoughts, reading about your hand injury i think you have been doing too much of this.....):devil:

SHORT STRAWS DO?...

Bluedell

IFAIK Rangers still get cash from Umbro on top of the JJB deal. Can anyone confirm this?

My take on the retail

In 2006 We did a deal with Umbro , putting their logo on it and giving them overseas distribution rights(Rangers retaining UK distribution) source Nick Peel interview.(i was told by a retail source that we were getting between 1 and 1.5 million per annum for this from Umbro )

Since the JJB licensing, it has went quiet on the Umbro payment. The only conclusion you can draw is that it was part of the deal.

Frankie

Not sure if or how this impinges on the Umbro deal as obviously �£3million (plus any cut of the initial �£18million) doesn't really match the �£6.5million per year Umbro estimate

The 6.5 million figure quoted Frankie was by Nick Peel and it is i believe a combination of our then GP on retail sales and an annual payment from Umbro although in the interview Peel did not give a breakdown.

Bluedell

"Let’s look at Celtic now. The 2008 figures are quoted above and the 2007 comparatives show turnover of Ã?£18.4m generating profit of Ã?£6.6m. But hang on a minute. Let’s look back at their 2007 accounts. They show 2007 Merchandising turnover as Ã?£13.4m, but don’t show any profit figures. They have taken Ã?£5m out of Multimedia and Communications and put it into Merchandising.

If we look at their wording carefully they have added in that Merchandising includes income from “retail partners”. I don’t know for sure what this means but appears that they have reallocated some income, perhaps sponsorship income into Merchandising to make it appear that they are earning more than Rangers.

It can only be presumed that Celtic made nothing like �£4.8m from Merchandising if looking at like for like comparison with Rangers."

Possible explanation as follows?

2007

2007 gross figures are 13.4 million and the 5 million added as you say. I can only presume it is the net payment from Nike of 5 million .. The net profit split would then be 1.6 million from sales of 13.4 million and the Nike monies giving a total of 6.6 million.

2008

If the figure of 16.92 million is made up the same way it would indicate retail sales of 11.92 million, the balance as above with the Nike money. That leaves a net profit split of a trading loss on their retail of 200k with the Nike payment turning it into an overall profit. This may be the case as I was told (pre-credit crunch obviously) that Celtic were in discussion with JJB for a Rangers type deal as they are struggling to grow retail as these figures suggest.

We have been lied to by somebody, whether it was Walter saying it came as a surprise to him or Cuellar himself saying he wanted to stay and was happy (on more than one occasion). And what about this release clause - we were led to believe it was �£10 m. This seems like a Hutton scenario again - he wanted to stay but was pushed by Bain or SDM. Any road up, it's time we were treated as grown-ups by the club - how can we believe anything now?

I think the key here is the timing. I am finding it difficult to believe this all happened on Sunday as the official site says. It is now clear Cuellar had a sell on clause, but with us having Weir, Webster, Cuellar and Dailly as back up we were well covered for centre back-then we go and sign Bougherra? The only conclusion i can draw is that failure to automatically qualify for Europe let his agent alert clubs-something i am sure Rangers would have been aware of-maybe the catalyst to our signing from Charlton?

Whatever the facts the bottom line is selling our best player last January cost us the title-selling our best defender before a ball is kicked this season-groundhog day?

I think the catalyst for the player was the exit from Europe-no high profile games for him this season. I think Cuellar could have gone to a bigger and better club than Villa but wish him all the best and thank him for last season.

The question it leaves once again is Rangers and their handling of contractual issues. After the rave reviews the player had should we not have offfered him an incentive to raise the bar on his sell on clause? I am sure in a bidding situation we could have got another 3 million for him.

I believe that we were in a net debt position during most of the 90s. The only time that we weren't was following the Enic investment. For example in 1994 we had loans of �£8m, and an overdraft of over �£700K

 

The club made losses in 1989, 1992 and 1994. We made a profit of �£43K in 1991 so hardly substantial, and the �£1.2m profit in 1990 was only because of the sale of Albion. I'm not sure what point you are trying to make about us being in profit in the very early 90s, but it doesn't seem overly relevant.

 

Going back to the situation when Murray bought the club, I have looked into it further and the club had an overdraft of �£4.5m at the start of the year and an overdraft of �£7m at the end of the year.

 

I'm not sure where you are getting your information?

What did we get for the Albion Bluedell-was it 2 million?

rbr

"we were cash rich with approx �£28 million in the bank "

rbr, from memory Murray paid 6 million and took on circa 9 million of debt when he bought Rangers from Marlborough

Yes, they are entitled to do it, but it's still ridiculous that they are allowed to do it.

 

Why wouldn't it be discounted upon sale? What possible reason would a buyer have to use this basis of valuation?

Ref the valuation, here is an excerpt from an article in 2004

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/2378239/Rangers-contemplate-rights-issue-to-tackle-andpound68m-debts.html

David Murray

"We need to regroup, refinance and get the club on an even keel, and I have never denied that is my responsibility."

David Tweed RST is quoted in the same article

Murray also claimed that Ibrox Stadium was an asset worth �£100 million, a figure Tweed takes with a pinch of salt. "In 2002 the club's financial report listed their fixed tangible assets - the stadium and training ground - at �£39 million. By last year that figure had grown to �£51 million," he said.

"Earlier this season Mr Murray said Ibrox was worth �£50-100 million and now it appears to have settled at the latter figure."

I go along with your thoughts on the valuation Bluedell. These assets are due to be revalued in 2009 according to MIH acounts. It will be interesting to see what figure they come up with.

Calscot

I'm not that impressed with our contributions. We bring the club into disrepute with sectarian crap, Ibrox is like a morgue, we cause trouble and even riot on our travels, we boo our own players, and even when we're winning and doing well all we do is moan about the style of football. We hound our managers mercilessly and continuously slag off our players. Also when we're asked to put up about 7M in a share issue, we put up about 1M - Celtic fans have raised about 50M in share issues which is what put them back into financial health.

In answer to the above please note-:

In my forty plus years of attending football matches in Scotland, there has not been 1 season where both Rangers and Celtic fans have not indulged in what has now become termed sectarian(i repeat both clubs) You seem to infer this only occurs at Rangers games-wrong.

As regards Ibrox being a morgue, then i can assure you as someone who has has to attend hospitality functions at both grounds, despite the hype, Celtic park for a normal league game is no different.

Hounding our managers? Strachan was the subject of the worst public demonstration of fan abuse last season after the home defeat by Motherwell.(despite going for 3 in a row and qualifying for the latter stages of the champions league)

Old Firm managers are under pressure, more so than most British clubs, it goes with the territory.

Regarding the 7 million share issue versus theirs. Circumstances can dictate

fan support as you well know. During our successful period under Murray, Rangers fans were investing millions through season tickets, club deck bonds and the seat placement guarantee. During this period, Celtic fans had the option to invest in their club, primarily through season tickets, something which they did not do. It was only when McCann came along and provided an opportunity for the first time in Celtics history, to invest in shares and riding along on the back of the euphoria of regime change many participated. No surprise there.

With regard to the 7 million Rangers share issue flop, is it any wonder? We had seen one of the worst cases of financial mishandling in British football history by our chairman, which resulted in huge debts of 75 million ( that was after a property revaluation). Joe Lewis and Dave Kings 60 million investment was heading south and at the same time Murray personal wealth was soaring northwards (his wealth from 2000 to 2007 increased by half a billion) Are you really surprised that ordinary working class supporters did not dip into their pockets and buy shares to fill part of the hole that a multi millionaire(fastracking towards billionaire) chairman had dug????

Regarding the last Celtic share issue of 15million. The split was 8 million from Dermot Desmond and 3.8 million was contributed from millionaire Celtic fans with another 3 million from ordinary fans. As regarding the hype that it was oversubscribed, it was heading for a substantial shortfall, hence the millionaires input after some arm twisting .

One area where Celtic are light years ahead and that is their public image, their spin if you like(a bit like new labour under Alistair Campbell). People are ready to believe what they and their apologists in the press put out-in fact its so good some people believe Rangers are the only club with a so called sectarian singing problem��....