Search the Community

Anyone got any info on their finances after the wheeling and dealing, despite the media slant I have a suspicion they were net sellers and have used that to fund Keane's wages.

http://www.gersnetonline.co.uk/2010/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=194:tennents-new-shirt-sponsor-of-rangers&catid=1:articles&Itemid=67 As most bears will be aware, the Carling shirt-sponsorship deal ends this summer and Coors (despite official comment to the contrary) have no plans to renew the deal with both sides of the Old Firm. This means several high profile companies have been in discussions with club representatives in recent months with a view to taking over the lucrative contract. To that end, we can confirm Tennent's have agreed a deal with both Rangers and Celtic to become the new shirt sponsor as of next season. Their existing deal with the Scottish Football Association ends after the World Cup and with no Scotland participation there-in, the company have decided they can increase brand exposure via working with club teams who can offer global awareness via the Champions' League. While the finances of the deal have not yet been confirmed, Rangers will be hoping to match the terms of the 2005 Carling monies and with the Umbro shirt manufacturer sponsorship also due to run out again this summer (but more complicated in terms of its association with JJB), this is one commercial positive for the financial battles ahead. This new deal is for two years with a 12 month option included.

There's been a lot talked about the finances of these clubs over the last while and a lot of the steps being mentioned by all three sound very familiar. Things like debt for equity, bond issues, talk of selling parts of the club off and leasing them back etc. Are these all things that SDM has done in the past with us? TBH I can't remember the details of the various steps SDM has taken in the past to re-finance the club, but they all sound very familiar. Man Yoo seem to be on an incredibly sticky wicket as their debt now looks like outweighing their equity by 2.5 times or something like that. The figures they're talking about are properly mental, looking like a total debt of over 1 Billion?!? I suppose Hearts are slightly different because Romanov is also their banker, so as long as nothing happens to him, they're safe. Same deal with Chelsea and Abramovich. But by them swapping debt for equity, is that not just what SDM used to do with MIH, so he wasn't getting rid of the debt, just putting it against another part of MIH? Which again, is fine, so long as the parent company doesn't get in to trouble? At what point do all these clubs run in to the danger of going to the wall? Like has happened here, while there's a good source of income and the potential to be run in the black, what good is that if its buried under a mountain of debt? Sorry, loads of boring financial stuff, but I know a few of the guys here are well up on this sort of stuff. Cheers, Mike.

A strange choice in my opinion. Sacked by Sheff Wed, a Championship club last month and appointed manager of an EPL club.

WALTER Smith has warned of dire consequences for Rangers if they do not resist selling any players during the current transfer window and also retain the bulk of their squad whose contracts are due to expire in the summer. The frustration Smith has experienced for the last 18 months as the Ibrox club grapple with their financial problems resurfaced yesterday as he responded to speculation linking Pedro Mendes with a move to Sporting Lisbon. Rangers, who have not been able to buy a new player since August 2008, remain under pressure from the Lloyds Banking Group to restructure their finances and reduce their �£31 million debt. But manager Smith is adamant Rangers cannot afford any further cuts to the first-team squad for the second half of a season which currently sees them seven points clear of Celtic at the top of the SPL and still involved in both domestic cup competitions. While top scorer Kris Boyd has now been offered a new contract, Smith is keen to see the future of other players tied up. Among those whose existing deals also run out at the end of the season are Kirk Broadfoot, Nacho Novo, DaMarcus Beasley and Stevie Smith. "If we don't start to offer some of them the opportunity to stay with the club, then we will cease to operate, never mind anything else," said Smith. "We have been in negotiations with a few others as well as Kris. We have started talking to Kirk Broadfoot and Nacho Novo. It is something that has to happen." With his resources further limited by injuries and unavailability, Smith was forced to fill out his substitutes' bench with four youngsters in Andrew Little, John Fleck, Gregg Wylde and Jamie Ness. He regards it as a clear indication of why Rangers should not be looking to offload senior players such as Mendes. "Who says we are going to get rid of Pedro?" added Smith. "I've not heard anything about getting rid of Pedro, apart from what I read in newspapers. Last week, we only had two senior professionals in Maurice Edu and Stevie Smith on the bench at Celtic Park. We will only have a couple available to us again this weekend. With suspensions set to kick in for the second half of the season, we will need all of our players between now and the end of the season." Smith is still waiting to learn if Boyd will accept the club's offer of a new three-year contract reported to be worth around �£18,000 a week. "His agent spoke with (chief executive) Martin Bain yesterday and he has gone off to think over the offer being made," said Smith. "We've still not heard anything back." One player Smith would be prepared to lose is French winger Jerome Rothen, 31, who has failed to make the desired impact during his season-long loan from Paris St Germain. He is no longer in the manager's first team plans and hopes to return home this month. Rangers begin their defence of the Active Nation Scottish Cup tomorrow and Smith is able to welcome Kenny Miller and Kevin Thomson back from suspension and injury respectively for the lunchtime kick-off against Hamilton Accies at New Douglas Park. http://sport.scotsman.com/sport/Walter-Smith--warns-.5968866.jp

Thought I'd start a nice wee negative thread Without any doubt, there are some players in our team who are currently somewhat below their abilities, guys who are so gigantically out of form that it's worth a bit of a sob. Whether the formation is wrong, the morale is on the floor, the finances in disarray...these professionals being paid at least 10K a week are not doing the business in the way we know they can. Who are they? Lafferty: The biggest offender this season so far. I had lunar hopes for this guy after his emergence particularly in the 2-2 draw against Hearts at Ibrox last season, when he enjoyed a rare foray in the striker position and simply ran riot. Held the ball up with ease, beat men like they weren't there, scored a clinical goal, and looked every inch a 3.5M striker. His injury at half time was tragic, and his absence a major reason we conceded 2 in the second half - because instead of him holding the ball up at the Hearts end, they started pressing our backline and we caved in. This match showed what he could do, as did his display this season for Norn Iron, ironically again forced off during half time with an injury. For us? Abysmal - a shell of his capacity. Whether it's being played mostly out of position on the sideline as a pseudo winger, or some psychological effect of the divegate ban I don't entirely know, but Lafferty is quite some way off the potential we saw in him fleetingly last year. Thomson: I didn't buy into the Kevin Thomson Future Captain and Demigod Hype like many supporters did, but I do know that his pre-injury displays far outway his current contributions by a 14 tonne weight. The fact his name is almost never mentioned in tv commentary, the fact that his only meaningful impact on games seems to be rash tackles and yellow cards and the fact he makes no creative spark tick on the pitch at all suggests his injury may just have permanently damaged him like Mols' did. This is not to say the 2 players are comparible, but pre-injury Thomson, while over-rated imo, was still substantially better than the anonymous makeweight masquerading under his name these days. Miller: Without an open play goal since the Dead Sea merely had a bad cold, Miller is really struggling for inspiration, form and composure. He was never the most classy of strikers, but seemed to have the backbone to take the big chances when they came. Look at Parkhead and Easter Road last season. He seemed the perfect man to fill the lone striker boots of Cousin in the CL - especially in light of his national displays in the same position. But that match for Scotland against Holland where he did everything but score seems to have been the catalyst for his latest bout of meagre form. He is quite an inconsistent chap Miller - when he's good he's really great, but when he's not on fire he struggles with his entire game. Wasn't able to get a goal in the CL, struggling in the SPL, and generally below what we know he can do. Davis: Nothing new here, is fantastic between July and November, average at best between November and March, then hits form after that till the end of the season. Same old Davis. Bougherra: What's become of the second half of last season's fantastic defender? This season he's poor at the back, getting caught out all the time, failing to cover gaps and generally looking thoroughly uninterested. He admits himself he was slow to start last year, admitting he didn't click till January, but after that till the summer he was, I concede, fantastic. This year, beginning with his appalling displays at the Emirates, he's been a shell of his old self, so much so Wilson must be gutted to have been dropped in favour of him. Weir: Understandable this one, and maybe a bit unfair on the part of yours truly, but Weir has been absolutely horrible this year. I considered him our best stopper last year, in light of a consistent overall season. But this year he's been completely dire - getting way to close to strikers half the time, letting them turn him easily, before fouling them. Yeah, he has a football brain, but I think the body gave up by about the end of last year. Sorry to use the excuse, but he's too old and shouldn't be playing anymore. Because he's not good enough now. Naismith: We were all delighted at his emergence in the summer, but since the season's got going in earnest I have to say what serious contribution has Naismith made? He's looked promising in glimpses, patchy periods of hope, but overall he's made next to no impact this season. He is absolutely not the boy wonder we hoped we'd see when he had a very good pre-season. There's potential there, but I'm not seeing much of it being realised at the moment. Rothen: Whatever happened to this guy!? After a virtuoso display in Germany where he looked every inch the left sided Beckham label he's been lumbered with, he has faded into nothing. And not even faded - he seemed to receive all the blame for our defeat in Unirea because he's the only guy who featured that night who hasn't featured for a single minute since then. Swine flu? He denies it - just a cold he says. Rothen has been bizarrely cast out from first team affairs, while we know he's capable of much more than he's been given the chance to show. You don't play 15 times for a strong French national side if you're not much cop. Comments/agreements/angry objections welcome

The statement from the Chairman at the club AGM this morning, and posted in full on the boards, made it quite clear that he did not feel that supporter ownership, ala Barcelona, could work at Rangers due to the huge gap in the tv market, and the fact that the fans already pay enough for tickets, transport, strips, events etc, and to ask them to pay even more for a membership/ownership scheme will be too much. What that says to me is that the Chairman does not believe that the income generated currently at the club is sufficient for the club to be progressive. The money we take in from season tickets, tv rights, European competitions, merchandise, publications and other avenues is not enough to put a competitive squad of players at a manager's disposal. As he is party to the finances in much greater detail, and given his successful business background, I am in no position to argue the point with him on this. Personally, I would have thought that we could be run on a self-sufficient basis, and in fact our previous chairman said this very thing a few years ago after nearly bankrupting us the first time this decade. However that is not the point I want to make. If we are to accept the chairman's words in the positive light that they were I am sure intended, where does that leave the current workings of the RST and Assembly who are trying to piece together a workable model for supporter investment? Does this mean that any new owner is only going to be viable if he commits a chunk of cash to the club not just once, but annually to keep us going, and that this cash cannot be in the form of loans or shares, as there will never be enough money to pay him back, given that we need this investment every year to compete? And if so, how much does our current chairman think it would require as an investment annually to ensure that enough cash is in the club to enable it to finance itself properly without debt, and to progress matters as a winning evolving side? My reading of the situation is that is must be a sizeable chunk of cash we are "short" every year, as a membership scheme of say 40,000 members paying �£100 annually would be �£4M per year, and if this is not going to be enough to fill the gap, then the gap must a chasm. And if it is such a gap, how can we expect to ask any one individual to pay such an amount just for the good of the club? Something doesn't quite add up here. Either we can pay our way and make some funds available under the present model, or we need a cash injection each year of perhaps around �£10M. I have no idea what sort of membership/ownership model the RST/RSA are going to come up with, but it would seem to me that, putting the buying of the club aside for a moment, if there were to be a scheme where members pay a sum each year, say around �£100, and for that cash get some small benefits on ticketing, merchandise and events, and the chance to vote on fans issues in a democratic OMOV way, I can see that being quite popular. Say a number equal to the current capacity take that membership option up, that would raise �£5.2M per season of income to the club. Are we trying to say that sort of income would not be enough for a members owned club to be self-sufficient. Has Murray put in �£5M net each year for the last 20 years? Would any potential buyers be willing to put in �£5M net each year? I have liked what I have heard from the new chairman so far in his short tenure, but his statement today has left me with more questions than answers.

Darrell King Published on 4 Dec 2009 LAST WEEK Graham Duffy, the Florida-based Glaswegian business*man, exclusively revealed in The Herald his plans for a supporter-led buyout of debt-laden Rangers. The 42-year-old Glaswegian wants to underwrite the Ibrox clubââ?¬â?¢s Ã?£31m debt and then implement a membership scheme, with 45,000 supporters taking a Ã?£1000 stake in the Scottish champions. Duffyââ?¬â?¢s proposals have been the subject of great debate since. In an exclusive interview with Darrell King from his home in Florida, Duffy responds to the issues every Rangers fan has been talking about since he went public last Saturday ââ?¬Â¦ What is your motivation behind the moves to lead a fans buy-out of Rangers? I have been a lifelong supporter; although I live abroad it does not dilute the affection for the club and its history. The reason I decided to get involved was one of necessity. Being a businessman and understanding certain events, I was concerned when Sir David Murray suddenly resigned as chairman. The speed in which matters unravelled caught everyone by surprise. These decisions are not taken lightly, but they are taken for a reason. I think that every Rangers fan would admit that they assumed all was well at the club. But to suddenly be informed that the club was at risk, whether it was or not, caught many by surprise. Subsequently, to sit on the sidelines and wait to see what direction the club was going in was unacceptable. I think it is time for Rangers to awake from the slumber and be what they are ââ?¬â?? a successful global player on a global stage. It is time for the club to tap into its own energy and expand beyond its current borders. Graham Duffy Will there be any monetary gain for you in this plan? No. This proposal has no monetary gain for any individual. The investment by the supporters shall not be invested in any other company other than Rangers. Why should fans invest hard cash when you donââ?¬â?¢t intend to? It appears your plan is to underwrite the clubââ?¬â?¢s Ã?£31m debt, but not actually invest? I have already invested a fair bit of money at this time, albeit it is not millions of pounds. There is a business plan proposal which would ring-fence the current financial situation, as there has been no due diligence carried out at this time. The plan is based upon three stages, short-term, medium-term and long-term. To allow the short-term plan to be implemented, the creditors of Rangers Football Club plc must be secure and amicably agreeable to the proposals to permit the transition ââ?¬â?? without this support this cannot proceed. Being realistic it is highly unlikely that 45,000 or even 15,000 supporters are going to invest the funds required to resolve the initial situation, therefore certain individuals must underwrite certain debts that come with the acquisition, which is a severe risk to these individuals. Individuals lending money or gifting money brings risk at the same time, so this has been avoided. These individuals will also be investing by becoming members just like every other supporter, I most certainly will be buying a good few memberships, but as a supporter. As for the fans investing money, they already do and have done for over 100 years. They are the single biggest investors in the club and to be honest they are not investing in a financial reward they are investing in winning trophies and being proud to be a Rangers Supporter. In summary every individual, be it supporter or a member of the initial consortium involved in this plan will be investing money, some more than others. Would you be prepared to invest hard cash, rather than guarantee the debt, into a takeover plan? Individually I have invested hard cash, but this is not a case of the club transferring from one individual ownership to another, we have to avoid a sticking plaster scenario and focus on the longer-term structure of the club. There is no need to invest hard cash in the short term. Certain mechanisms must be activated in the plan before there is any real hard cash, due diligence must be completed, problems must be solved, we have to tidy up and consolidate firstly. If another party introduced a different business plan and wanted your support would you provide it? Would you be prepared to invest cash to help other parties improve situation of club? I want what is best for Rangers and if that plan is in the best interests of Rangers then I would assist whoever wished assistance. I already have stated that there are a lot of complications to opening a chequebook. I am not aware of any multi-millionaires who keep Ã?£200m cash in the bank, they must reinvest their capital to earn from it. I donââ?¬â?¢t think a 0.5% return on money in the bank is enticing, they would be using their capital at this time as there are a lot of bargains available, so in essence they would have to enter the debt market to invest hard cash and again this brings us back to the current situation. Do I think that others I have been in discussions with would invest some capital ââ?¬â?? including myself? I would have to say yes, but with conditions. How many people have you spoken to regarding forming a consortium? I have been in discussions with a handful of individuals, some more than others, whose identities shall remain private. I wished for the discussions taking place and the individuals involved to be anonymous ââ?¬â?? including myself. When you contacted me a month ago, I stressed my desire to have the plan progressed further before going public. Unfortunately, someone who knows me personally breached a trust and gave my details to another member of the press, and I decided to go public last week. Did the others fully support your business plan? They also have the best interests of Rangers at heart and they wish to have this situation resolved as soon as possible. We have had minor disagreements on some issues, but it was more to do with eliminating any potential impact on the club. In general we have broad agreement on the way forward. Why have they chosen not to go public and will they soon? No one involved in this wished to go public, we would have preferred to have moved matters further on and completed matters at hand rather than dealing with the publicity, positive or negative. I am sure that, should the plan be adopted, then there will be no way anyone can remain anonymous as certain public documents have to be executed. You have said that the fans have to back the plan before it can be implemented. How are you going to gauge this? Do you plan a referendum of the support? This has been the biggest unknown. There is no guarantee that the Rangers supporters will stand up and invest in their club but being a supporter I know at this time they will do all they can to assist in resolving this matter. We respect the fact that not everyone has cash in the bank, especially in this current climate. This is something again that has to be considered and we have proposed offering a finance package that can be paid in instalments making it more affordable and available to as many supporters who sincerely wish to become an owner of the club. If they vote against it, would you walk away? And is a verbal pledge enough of a guarantee from the support? What if they didnââ?¬â?¢t back it up? If the supporters withdraw their support then the club is finished ââ?¬â?? the club only exists because of them. If this proposal is voted down then it will have to be revisited. Whether a revised plan could work would be down to circumstances. The figures have stated you want 45,000 over three years to invest Ã?£1000, raising Ã?£45m. In the current climate, is this realistic? It would irresponsible and unrealistic to assume that everyone would want to just open their chequebook at this time. Some supporters do have the finances available and want to invest immediately, some supporters donââ?¬â?¢t have the finance available at this time but really wish to invest, some supporters may wish to see some progress and would choose to invest when they were satisfied that it was in their interests. I have been told by people this week that 45,000 is too low, some say it is too high, but to complete the plan we had to take into consideration some facts and we had to assume some other uncertainties. I personally feel that Rangers have an unbelievable number of supporters globally, hundreds of thousands, and 45,000 is a very small percentage to rely upon. What would the contingency plan be if the fans only raised, say Ã?£20m? Who would meet the difference as clearly the business plan would be underfunded? The business plan is malleable, it is not carved in stone. Again I go back to certain assumptions being made. The business plan is a bit like a road map, it allows you to map out your journey from A to B. We would assume that the map is factual and we will not have any diversions. We never assume that there will be no road works or diversions, but we believe one thing, we will get to B. That is the same as the business plan, it will change and alter as required. The business plan and the proposals are not solely about the football side. Rangers are a huge untapped successful brand, this business plan has many different revenue steams that will come online in the future. What will the annual membership fee be? Again the membership is based upon assumptions. There is no definitive answer as it is down to what the response is and how many members come on board. This is not a quick capital injection, it has to be monitored and corrected as progress is made. It is also not just a case of grab as much money as possible, there are benefits to being a member, there will be discounts and rewards. But again we have to assume an acceptable level of support and an unacceptable level of support, so the figures being used are between Ã?£50 and Ã?£200. So fans have to pay Ã?£1000 as a one-off fee to become a member. Then an annual fee of Ã?£50-Ã?£200. And then a season ticket and all other costs? Is that feasible? As I have stated previously, between discounts and rewards the supporters should not be expending much more than they are at this time. It is difficult to complete this transition without some form of contribution and support. The supporters have voiced their wish to become an owner of the club. According to the last accounts Rangers had net assets of Ã?£113m, that is the stated assets; the supporters want ownership of the club and therefore the assets. To ask 45,000 members to contribute Ã?£1000 only raises Ã?£45m, not even half the value of the asset, this investment in turn is being used to eliminate any risk to that asset, which makes the asset even more secure, however this comes with a price and a commitment. What would your role at the club be should this plan go ahead? Would you like to be chairman, or would you sit on the board? The proposal consists of three new Special Purpose Vehicle companies being formed. There is a constitution for each of these companies, a competent board of directors, strategic planning process and a mission statement, all in place prior to trading. Once the proposal gets to the stage of acceptance and proceeds my role is over. At that time there would be no need for any further assistance from me ââ?¬â?? the job will have been done. Although it would be a privilege, I have no interest in being on the board of Rangers. I would be doing the position an injustice as I would not be able to fulfil the obligations due to my other business interests and commitments.

a post from rangers media Hi guys The Florida consortium story that has been unveiled in the press today is 100 per cent spot on. The Herald broke the story about the state of Rangers finances a month ago, then floated the fans buyout in the Sunday paper and it's culminated in this. My understanding is that Daryl King - who wrote the story - has been to Florida to meet the guys involved. They have NOT gone to the bank or Murray yet, the story clearly states that, which is why he Murray is technically right when he says no new approach. That's just his normal way of trying to rubbish people - he is dead on his feet and is trying to flush parties out, which has happened today. But this has been worked on for a long time, it's real, it involves the fans and it's been orchestrated all along to come out now. Plenty of people with big money are involved. Murray knows his days are finished, and the new dawn will not be far away if the punters buy into this plan. If I get anymore I will try to update. On way to game guys, so see if I can find anymore out. Just wanted everyone on here to stay calm -this CAN happen. I think the figure mentioned is a one-off �£1000 per head, with 45,000 people targeted over three years. Ie 15,000 fans raising �£15m a a year, and that can be paid up. That money gets you a membership, a vote, and a say. The debt will be covered by the consortium, is what I take from the story. I checked with some sources this morning and it's not a fairy story. King has been working on this guy and others for a while - wonder if they got wind Murray was doing a 'spoiler' and decided to break cover? Just a guess, but would make sense. Now is the time for the fans to step up. I would be in, I have �£3000 set aside I would put in, so that's the first 15000 down to 14997!!!! Good luck today lads, stay safe on the road and get behind the team.

The game Rangers can't afford to lose Published Date: 22 November 2009 By Martin Hannan FOOTBALLERS, MANAGERS, fans and sportswriters alike would much rather talk about events on the pitch than off it. Ball control rather than balance sheets is usually the preferred topic of conversation, but with Rangers up for sale, you cannot ignore the latter. So let's get news of the Ibrox club's financial crisis out of the way first, with the simple statement that there is no news. Or at least there will be no official update from inside Rangers at the moment, not even on manager Walter Smith's future ââ?¬â?? "it's not the right time to make such decisions," he said. Every senior staff member has received a letter from the club's lawyers telling them in polite legalese to shut their traps as Rangers are now in a formal potential takeover situation and the stock market honchos don't like comment that could influence share prices. So now we can get on with the business of Rangers as a playing team and oops, there could be a bit of a crisis looming there, too. For on Tuesday night at Ibrox, Rangers play VfB Stuttgart in the Champions League. If they lose, they are out of the Champions League, and will also be unable to gain third place and the parachute drop into the Europa League. Victory is vital, therefore, as it is for Stuttgart who have also stuttered with their league and European form, being only a point ahead of Rangers in Group G. The omens for a home victory are good. On the two previous occasions that Rangers met Stuttgart at Ibrox in the Champions League, the score was 2-1 in favour of the Glasgow club who have only ever lost twice at home in Europe to German opposition. Indeed Rangers had only lost once in 20 home matches in Europe before this season's disasters against Sevilla and Unirea Urziceni. It's a case of getting back on track, then, for a side which showed in Stuttgart with a 1-1 draw that they are more than capable of competing. And the hero of that night, goalscorer Madjid Bougherra, has been given a passport to play against the Germans on Tuesday. Northern Ireland internationalist Steve Davis feels that Rangers can still qualify for the latter stages of European competition, but says they need to fix their home form. "I don't know how to explain it," said Davis, "but when the groups came out we were looking to our home form to push us through and we just haven't been capable of getting the results. "We played well for an hour against Sevilla but they opened us up after that and against Unirea the performance just wasn't there, and we didn't have any luck either. If we were to lose our first two home games and still qualify that would be a big achievement. It's a must-win game and it would be a big plus if the fans can get behind us. "It's hard for the fans to get behind you when you are getting beaten 4-1, but hopefully we can start well, the fans can get behind us and we can go on and get the right result. We have to win to give ourselves a chance of qualifying for either of the competitions. "We performed really well against them out there, and though it took ten or 15 minutes to get to grips, I thought we played really well after that, especially in the second half when we controlled the play." One probable source of danger to Rangers is Stuttgart's most influential player, captain and midfield general, Thomas Hitzlsperger. Davis played alongside Hitzlsperger at Aston Villa and remembers him well, comparing him with a Rangers hero of recent vintage, JÃ?¶rg Albertz, with whom Hitzlsperger shares a nickname ââ?¬â?? Der Hammer. "I had just arrived and Thomas was an established first-team player," said Davis. "He had a great left foot and could shoot from distance, and that was one of his main attributes, and since he has left Aston Villa (in 2005] he has gone on to do really well for Stuttgart and is quite a big part of the German national team as well. "There's not many can hit the ball as hard as he does, and obviously JÃ?¶rg Albertz was similar with a great left peg. As a midfielder, you have to be aware that he is capable of hitting one in from 30 or 40 yards into the top corner and you have to close him down quickly. At Villa, every time he got on the ball at that distance you could hear the crowd willing him to shoot." Smith agrees that Hitzlsperger is a major threat: "If you let him have a shot at goal he's just like JÃ?¶rg. When I was at Everton I saw him play in Aston Villa's reserve team and he scored two goals from about 30 yards." Though securing third spot and a place in the Europa League last 32 would be most people's idea of salvation for Rangers, Smith pointed out that both his team and Stuttgart still have a chance of qualifying for the next stage of the Champions League: "The motivation for either team is great because though the results have not been great, we find ourselves in a position where can still qualify, but we have to find a dramatic change in performance from our last home game." Rangers simply must not lose or they will be out of Europe, with all the budgetary devastation that will cause. There we go mentioning money again ââ?¬â?? perhaps the best thing Smith could do on Tuesday would be to tell everyone at Ibrox to forget about bad finances and play good football.

Being a Rangers supporter these days� means you have to be totally immune to stress. Every day a new story appears in the media. Douglas Park, Dave King a fan take-over and recently the Herald hit us with an ex-pat Florida Billionaire. Firstly he wants to stay anonymous. Why pass information on to the Herald then. While this may be possible in the opening negotiations i would be extremely cautious of someone i could not look in the eye. His plan to give a bridging Facility to cover Rangers debt and let the 15.000 fans pay 1000 pounds over three years looks good on the surface but at the end up the fans have put in 45million for 50% and he gets 50% for putting in absolutely hee haw. Surely this anonymous mouse is taking the Mickey. Do we really want to go down the millionaire�s toy, road again anyway? Have we not learned from the past 20 years? Remember us scoffing at Gretna and their millionaire owner Brooks Mileson well little did we know that a year later we would almost be in a similar situation. As a Rangers supporter living in Holland i have been following the demise of Dick Scheringa who was the sugar daddy to AZ Alkmaar and just like Rangers being a part of Murray International holdings, AZ fell under the Dick Scheringa Beheer, a group of Scheringa companies including the Dick Scheringa Bank (DSB). One Statement from a financial expert on TV saying the finances at the bank were in a mess and that started a run of people lifting money. Within days Scheringa�s whole empire collapsed about him. Unlike Murray, Scheringa or the DSB had paid AZ up front so they are safe for the moment but once the fiscals come looking for money they could also be in deep trouble. Wouldn�t it be great to have a Russian Billionaire like Chelsea i have heard many say over the last few weeks but more and more noises are coming to the surface that Roman Abramovitch�s companies are also in serious trouble. He recently sold shares worth 50million pounds for only 12million pounds supposedly to free up some cash as he is reputed to have had some cash flow problems. He denies that of course. All employees at Chelsea have been warned that they have not to leak any information over the finances at Stamford Bridge. The last financial statement to be given free was in 2007 and stated that Chelsea were 83million pounds in the red and owed Roman Abramovitch, on interest free loans, a staggering 578million pounds to be payed back within 18 months of asking.. This figure is now thought to have ballooned up to more than 700million with the total debt near 800million. Now Roman might be willing to let this loan go on unserviced and i am no financial wizard, but i would imagine that if the bottom falls out of Abramovitch�s businesses, as it did with Murray and Scheringa, then it won�t take the fiscals long before they start chasing the Abramovitch money at Chelsea. I would imagine that would be the end of Chelsea. A doomsday scenario probably thought impossible a few months ago. The greatest thing that can happen in any football club is that it is run by the fans for the fans and not for some rich fat cat to have a wee toy. We have learned from the above cases that we are not only dependant on our club being run financially correct but also depend on other business ventures of the owner to be run astutely. Unfortunately the massive debt crippling the club probably means we will have to get investors to clear the debt or possibly sell the first team and go forward with the youth team, accepting we will be second best for the first few years, a price that may be worth paying to get fan ownership. The youth option would of course probably hand Celtic the Champions league cash for the first few years and make them stronger an option unthinkable to many fans. Obviously Rangers and the bank will have to be willing and open to the idea of Fan ownership and play a large part in any transformation. For this to work we need the leaders of the all supporters groups to pull together and unite as one supporters group. They have to be in it for the love of Rangers and not to feed an inflated ego. We need enemies of the past to bury their hatchets and unite behind this cause otherwise it is doomed from day one. We need everyone on board no matter how big or small they are, every member and every tenner will count.

There has been much hype and hysteria over our current financial situation and most of the information that comes our way is both contradictory and confusing. The media would have us believe that the club was days from going into administration, was now being run by the bank, and that we'd sell half our team in January. All of the statements by the club and bank completely deny this, so the question is "Who is lying?" And can we clarify the real position of the club? Since the start, I've found the hyperbole surrounding our financial situation totally unbelievable - banks have no interest in running football clubs, there is no way our finances could suddenly become so bad that we were about to go bust, and selling all our best players halfway through the season makes no business sense whatsoever. With the latest financial audit and statement from our chairman making far more sense than anything that has come before it, maybe we should calm down and analyse the situation even if itââ?¬â?¢s a laymanââ?¬â?¢s analysis. First let's deal with the administration threat. It appears there were no surprises in the accounts and the club while not looking on the steadiest of feet, still came out with a clean audit with the ability to trade for the foreseeable future. So why all the fuss? The answer to me seems to be that the club, with very lofty ambitious, was (as we know) being pretty badly run without proper budgeting for the spending on player transfers and wages. We were making large losses and increasing our debt for the second time at an alarming rate. This happened before but at that time, our owner had a very healthy and very large business which was underwriting our debts and eventually actually paid a huge chunk of them off. That put us in a pretty good credit rating bracket at a time when banks were not very discerning who they lent their money to. Now with the credit-crunch, huge bank losses due to bad debts, and a change of ownership of our creditors, there is a bit of a credit hangover. Mix in the fact that our owner's companies overstretched themselves with expansion using short term debt before their industry ground to a pretty serious go slow period, and you have a bitter tasting hair off the dog with the bank getting shaky about our position. It seems they wanted to renegotiate our 15M overdraft and using that leverage to make changes in the boardroom and business plan. This seemingly has led to SDM resigning from the board and the appointment of Muir. This is where we get to the second point about the bank running the club. I think the truth is closer to the bank being concerned about unsustainable spending especially when our income is hugely vulnerable to whether on not we qualify for the Champions League and made worse by an unforeseen, significant reduction in our media income. They therefore have pressured the club to change it's business plan to a far more conservative and parsimonious one, which has less chance of being disastrous if certain targets (like CL qualification) are not met. Our new chairman has emphasised this, and told us that after much negotiation, a new business plan has been agreed which in turn means that the bank has extended the provision of a 15M overdraft until a review in something like March 2011. The Rangers board are not entirely happy about the business plan as it restricts the ability of the club to achieve its ambitions and probably removes any ability to speculate to accumulate which can bring success in a highly competitive business like football. However, it allows us to have access to the cash we need to run as a going concern and trade our way out of our current position. Muir himself will have plenty to do in his day to day work than worrying about the running of a football club and will merely be attending board meetings to represent the interests of the bank, which I presume are about once a month. As far as I can tell as a layman, the debt is not good but is within manageable proportions with the biggest problem being a lack of cash at hand which restricts our cash-flow ââ?¬â?? the real killer of businesses. Ã?£20M of our debt is actually a long term mortgage to be paid over 20 years at Ã?£1M per year plus interest. This loan is secured on property and I think we can agree that Rangers should have no foreseeable problem in servicing this debt. That leaves a balance of liabilities minus liquid assets of about Ã?£11M. Even on our lower year turnovers of Ã?£44M, this doesn't exactly seem even slightly insolvent and as our chairman says, there doesn't seem a great need for a "fire sale" of players, especially when that could seriously harm our income in the next year. Not only will a smaller and less skilful squad harm us competitively on the pitch - which has a direct effect on income, it will seriously affect the uptake of season tickets in the summer. No creditor with any intelligence would deliberately harm a debtorââ?¬â?¢s ability to pay what they owe, for merely a short term reduction in the outstanding debt. That only happens as a last resort if it looks like the company will imminently go bust and so there is a chance that the bank could get very little back at all. If a seriously good offer comes in for one of our best players, then I think the board will probably not want to look a gift horse in the mouth, and the likes of Bougherra may be off. However, a business case could easily be made to replace him with a player of lesser value - and the cash need not necessary go directly to pay off the debt directly but may be used to improve the clubs ability to pay short term liabilities ie bills. Of course that cash at hand does affect the net debt. So the state of play seems that while Rangers are under pressure from the bank to have a more prudent and sustainable business plan while ensuring the current credit facilities are not exceeded. So in conclusion: our finance are not that bleak with no chance of administration, no chance of being run by the bank and no chance of a fire sale of players in January. "So why do we need a new owner?" one might ask. This will probably be mostly due to the financial state of Murray's companies and so their ability to guarantee any future investment into the team, stadium or other expenditures. The bank probably want to separate the club from his empire, as the football clubââ?¬â?¢s ability to pay back the debt to the bank is pretty assured, due to the nature of 50,000 loyal, paying customers which will keep the club a going concern for a long time to come. Murray's empire in contrast, looks like it could easily collapse with many creditors getting a fraction of what they are owed. From the club's and supporter's point of view, RFC's ambitions can only be realised by capital injection, to put the club on a better, more stable financial footing in which the playing budget is not so overly restricted as it is now. The future does look to be fan ownership but for this to happen, it seems an interim, cash rich investor is necessary to get the ball rolling - a la Fergus McCann.

Another season, another new manager. It's starting to seem as though the Glorious 12th, the traditional start of the grouse hunting season, has been replaced in Scotland by the hunt for a new manager of the national football team. As George Burley's inglourious basterd of a reign comes to an end, the name put forward so far have reacted with all the delight of Dracula being awoken by a door to door garlic salesman. Graeme Souness, Mark McGhee and Owen Coyle have formally declined to be considered, while David Moyes doesn't even have to say anything for the nation to know he's staying put at Everton. There's always the chance Sir Alex Ferguson will fancy a bit of part time managing in between tilts at the Champions League, but it's a slim hope. And Rangers boss Walter Smith as been there and done that: is he likely to go back again? The fans have been reduced, only a few days after Burley's sacking, to rootling about in the bargain basement bin of managers. The first rule seems to be that they need to be unemployed, given the parlous state of the SFA's finances. The second, as always, is that they are a new broom, with which they will sweep in a new era of success. And the third is probably that foreigners are still verboten, after the dreck-shreck of the Berti Vogts period. We can safely rule out Terry Butcher, then. Two coaches have at least thrown their hats into the ring. Jimmy Calderwood, late of Aberdeen, and John Collins, late of Beveren, have declared they would be willing to talk. While neither set the pulses racing, they at least have the cachet of being educated, football-wise and other wise, abroad: Calderwood in Holland, and Collins in France. They would certainly bring a different approach to the job, but it's debateable at least that it would be any more successful. While both have their merits, I suggest a more radical solution. The SFA should approach BBC Scotland and ask it's football chunterer Murdo MacLeod if he fancies a crack at it. Anyone who listens, despite themselves, to the radio coverage the station provides can't fail to have been impressed by his tactical nous, his ability to spot a player, his passion for the cause. It would remain to be seen if he can transfer his passion for Celtic into the international arena, but it would be interesting to see - after all, the man played at the World Cup for Scotland. MacLeod also has the benefit of a continental education - this time in Germany - to broaden his horizon. Fans often sarcastically call upon commentators or writers to put their money where their mouth is, but no-one in their right mind would want to see James Traynor or Chick Young in charge of a football team, unless it were some "The Producers" style destroy-from-within mission. I'm serious here: MacLeod spots where teams (alright, Celtic) are underperforming and can suggest convincingly where teams (oh alright, Celtic) can change for the better. The man understand football and footballers. The only fly in the ointment I can see is that before every game he'll probably still tip Celtic to win, but we can use that to our advantage: think how confused foreign coaches and media will be. Murdo: your country needs you. What do you say?

http://www.football-finances.org.uk/rangers/2009/index.htm , how does this sites reasoning stack up , this guy has been doing this for a few years now

The Return Of The Rant Itââ?¬â?¢s been a while since I last vented my frustration on you poor souls, so this is long overdue! The reasons for the lack of rantings are many and varied, starting a new career which is eating into my time, lack of new and meaningful Rangers related topics (I know, more of that later) and a general malaise in what is happening in and around our club. So enough of the excuses and on with the ranting, but where to start! Our esteemed Chairman has gone AWOL and taken Boogie with him and the bank appear to be pulling the (purse) strings within Ibrox. Iââ?¬â?¢ll leave you to decide if the two are related. This disturbing turn of events have been predicted for a while from those described as ââ?¬Ë?doom-mongersââ?¬â?¢ but it appears that SDM has taken us to the brink and we are in serious financial trouble and in freefall. Tomorrow sees our latest financial results published and theyââ?¬â?¢ll make for interesting reading. It is predicated that the debt will have risen to over the Ã?£30M mark (again) and with little or no sign of this improving. This financial meltdown has gotten the hopes of a takeover heightened but there appears to be no-one willing to show their cards and place a firm offer to SDM for Rangers. The recent ââ?¬Ë?riot in Romaniaââ?¬â?¢ and inconsistent form, especially in Europe and the continued speculation of whether further staff cuts (including players and management) donââ?¬â?¢t exactly make Rangers attractive to potential buyers. However, the recent happenings must have finally opened the eyes of even the most ardent SDM supporters. He has overseen the most irresponsible overspending in our entire history and has taken us to the brink and into the hands of the bank ââ?¬â?? we are at their mercy. Despite SDMââ?¬â?¢s and the banks protestations, there are likely to be wholesale changes at Ibrox come January if a buyer doesnââ?¬â?¢t come forward. This will mean players sold and not replaced and the enforced promotion of young players (not necessarily a bad thing if managed correctly) and a change in the management of the club (again, not necessarily a bad thing). All this at a time where our bitterest rivals are struggling on the pitch and at a time where even a half-decent Rangers team would have had the title all but wrapped up. Tony Mowbry has a worse record than John Barnes and are still 2 points clear of us in the title race (we do have a game in hand). Our recent form has rightly raised concerns and the usual excuses of injuries and suspensions have been trotted out. Neither explains the lack of basic footballing ability constantly displayed by our players. We have decent players, that is unquestionable, but they appear to be unable to consistently turn in acceptable performances. This leads to the question of whether they are being coached properly. If all of the above is overtly depressing, have some sympathy for your author, I am sitting here typing this listening to The Smiths and Joy Division and with tomorrow being the day we hear about finances, UEFA sanctions and the EPL decision, the mood isnââ?¬â?¢t going to lighten any time soon. In the dark and distant days of the early to mid eighties, I used to think that there was never a dull moment following Rangers and despite the lack of success and decent players, I always believed that there was light at the end of the tunnel. In retrospect, I believe that this was youthful exuberance and the naivety of youth ââ?¬â?? no matter what it was, the sleeping giant that was The Rangers were awakened and we went to dominate domestically for over a decade. Maybe itââ?¬â?¢s my age, but there is little or no optimism when looking at the future of The Rangers unless we can convince the EPL to adopt us and attract substantial financial investment. Without this, and being resigned to a life in the SPL, The Rangers that we know and love will continue on a road to ruin and will be the death of The Rangers. No One Likes Us? At times it certainly feels this way and at the moment its open season on Rangers and especially us, the fans. The Scottish media who are never slow in putting the boot in, are having a field day with the off-field issues and the ââ?¬Ë?riot in Romaniaââ?¬â?¢. UEFA will have their say tomorrow. Domestically we have to suffer sectarian abuse on a weekly basis with no mention of this in the unbiased media. It even appears that the weather is conspiring against us with the postponement of the game at Tannidice due to a pitch that was no worse at half-time than it was a kick-off. Sitting in the Fair Play Stand watching the officials run round the pitch with a ball under their arms (which was never used to test the surface), watching the DUFC subââ?¬â?¢s deliberately kicking balls into puddles in both halves of the pitch whilst the officials were out, then kicking water at their backs, you just knew that the game was being cancelled. On leaving Tannidice, you couldnââ?¬â?¢t fail to notice the ire emanating from the Rangers support, at last the sleeping giant had awoken. Like a wounded animal, the Rangers support can only take so much ââ?¬Ë?pokingââ?¬â?¢ before it bites back. It appears the recent happenings have finally witnessed a snarling, biting response for the Rangers fans. Lets make sure we direct our ire in the right direction as people will start to take notice, and long may it continue. So given this, wasnââ?¬â?¢t it heartening to hear and see the welcome Hamburg SV had prepared for the Tims? You know, The Tims who are loved by every club they play against? Who have ââ?¬Ë?specialââ?¬â?¢ relationships all over Europe? I just wonder if the Hamburg boys would loan us their display for The Piggery on January 3rd? After all Rangers allowed Celtc to set up a display last season, surely John Reid will return the favour (if h isnââ?¬â?¢t too busy insulting us as a way to deflect from his own troubles). More power to the HSV fans who, with a quick search of Youtube, a fantastic fan-base who add colour and noise to every ground they visit. Some Poor Monkey Has A Tony Mowbry Heid The Blue Order are rightly praised for their continued contribution to the atmosphere at Ibrox and have been behind some memorable displays, banners and songs. Recently, probably due to the lack of support they receive from the rest of the ground on match-days whilst trying to get the singing going, they have resorted some old school (or should it be skool?) classics like ââ?¬Ë?Frank McGarvieââ?¬â?¢s wife is off ill reputeââ?¬â?¢, ââ?¬Ë?Jorge Cadette and his hair like spaghettiââ?¬â?¢, ââ?¬Ë?If I had the wings of a sparrow (if I had the arse of a crow, Iââ?¬â?¢d fly over parkhead tomorrow and shite on the barstewards below)ââ?¬â?¢. However, surely nothing can beat The Blue Orders homage to the new Celtc manager. Some Poor Monkey Has Got A Tony Mowbry Heid must rank amongst the funniest footballing songs ever. Lest We Forget Iââ?¬â?¢d like to finish on a serious note and take this opportunity to pay tribute to all those brave servicemen and woman who have paid the ultimate sacrifice and also to all those who have served ââ?¬â?? we will NEVER forget. Cammy F

The MIH accounts have been delayed until towards the middle of next year, so I thought I would take a quick look at a couple of major problems that they may be having, based on the last set of accounts that they issued as at January 2008. Property values/net assets Net assets (total assets less total liabilities) in the accounts were shown as �£157m. Included in this is property of �£545m. Commercial property values have fallen 30% since the start of 2008, which would equate to �£163m. If this new valuation was applied to the 2008 accounts then the Murray group would have net liabilities and would be technically insolvent. It is perfectly possible to be technically insolvent, while still being able to repay debt. This is the next area to be looked at. Repayment of debt The accounts show that MIH had �£4m of cash, but had loans of �£26m to repay in the year to 31 January 2009. Perhaps not the biggest problem in the world. However in the current year, MIH had a whacking �£406m of loans to repay, with no apparent way of doing so. Given the current banking crisis, it is not thought that MIH would have been able to renegotiate the payment terms of these loans, and must have resulted in MIH defaulting on some of its repayments and perhaps some related banking covenants. This would be what has allowed the bank to insist on the appointment of Donald Muir to the board of both Rangers and the Premier Property Group, and is apparantly giving him the power to over-rule the other Rangers board members. Lloyds obviously want to recoup as much of this cash as quickly as possible, and has them forcing changes on Rangers who had a managable financial situation, at least in the short term of the next 12-18 months. When people buy a house it is viewed a long term asset and they pay for it with a long term mortgage. Why MIH decided to finance the purchase of commercial property with short term loans is unexplainable and is possibly the biggest mistake David Murray has made in his career, and could ultimately result in MIH being wiped out. It has certainly put Rangers under threat but it must be hoped that Rangers emerge unscathed and looking forward to a bright future if a new owner can be found. Caveat - This is a very simplistic view and there are a number of assumptions made. I have not gone into technical details to make it easier for the reader to understand. Property values are said to have fallen 22.5% during 2008 and have fallen a further 7.5% in the 9 months to Sept 2010 (source IPD UK balanced Monthly Funds). However a well-respected fund manager told me that it was nearer 43%. MIH's property may be of a higher quality and may not have fallen by as much, but Ibrox is overvalued and as such I don't think 30% is unreasonable, although I am no expert on commercial property.

Chairman John Reid defends Celtic's spending policy and says the board - not the bank - will always decide which players to buy and sell. More...

Portsmouth have been banned from making new signings until they settle transfer debts owed to other English clubs. The Premier League blocked Pompey manager Paul Hart's attempt to sign midfielder Eugen Bopp on Monday. And they will not lift the ban until the club, who are bottom of the Premier League, have settled their debts. A club insider told BBC Sport the problem "should be resolved quickly" but the transfer ban will raise fresh questions about the club's finances. Saudi businessman Ali Al Faraj took over at Portsmouth three weeks ago, buying a 90% stake from previous owner Sulaiman Al Fahim. Last week, Al Faraj was quoted in the Saudi newspaper Asharq Al-Awsat as saying he was "no billionaire", knew nothing about sport and wanted to sell the club quickly. Israeli mogul Levi Kushnir and Hong Kong-based Balram Chainrai have subsequently emerged as potential investors in the club and have attended Pompey's last two matches, Tuesday's 4-0 Carling Cup win over Stoke and Saturday's 0-0 league draw at Hull. Another short transfer ban was imposed on the club at the end of August because of debts they owed, BBC Sport understands. With seven players unavailable for the Stoke game, Hart was eager to sign Bopp, who he had managed at Nottingham Forest. The 26-year-old, who was a free agent after being released by Crewe in the summer, had been training with Portsmouth for the last few weeks. However, the Premier League refused to register the player because of Portsmouth's debts. The transfer ban is the latest in a long line of off-the-field problems for manager Hart. There was a delay in the players' wages being paid in September, while the club was on the brink of administration in August. "A club needs to know where it is going and have a long-term plan," stated Hart ahead of the game with Stoke. "I wouldn't like to go any further with that because I haven't had these conversations with the new owners. I would anticipate this would be in the next month." http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/teams/p/portsmouth/8329673.stm

Calling BD and Craig. They have much less debt than us currently. Though come next years accounts, factoring in our cost cutting and CL money there will be much less in it. So how does what this guy says fit in? Who's in better shape in reality. Surely it's them atm?

From the guy who first broke the Rothen story on FF last night:

Surprised this hasn't been mentioned as it came from Bain after the Hamilton game.

First off, I make no apology for deliberately using the word legend in the article title. No matter our differing opinions on the man's contribution to the club, his affect on Rangers FC over the last 20 years is and always will be worthy of rumination and argument for the next 20 years and beyond. As such, in the far off distant future, fudge and counter fudge will result in the whole era becoming more of a myth than a truth. As such, for the record, please allow me to try and dissect his time as chairman with as much objectivity and balance as I can muster. David Murray was born in Ayr on 14/10/1951 and up until his purchase of Rangers was a decent rugby player and partly interested in Ayr United football team. Indeed, in the mid-80s he wanted to buy Ayr but his approach was rebuffed at that time. Apparently Ayr didnââ?¬â?¢t fancy Murrayââ?¬â?¢s impressive business credentials to improve their fortunes. I doubt theyââ?¬â?¢d make the same decision again given the chance. I also note with interest Murrayââ?¬â?¢s recent comments about people like Joe Lewis and Roman Abramovich investing in football to ââ?¬Ë?buy a profileââ?¬â?¢. Is he really suggesting he wasnââ?¬â?¢t aware of that when Graeme Souness persuaded him to get involved with Rangers? No matter his intentions, in 1988 he bought Rangers FC from the Lawrence group who had owned the club for a number of years. Hence, Murray was not responsible for starting the so-called Rangers/Souness revolution despite what many fans still believe. Souness was actually brought to the club by then chairman David Holmes. These 2 men were then responsible for the return of the SPL championship to Ibrox for the first time in nearly 10 years. Indeed, despite many failing memories, Murray was not involved in the purchase of players such as Woods, Butcher and Gough amongst others. In actual fact, Murray, despite buying the club in November 1988, didn't even become chairman until June 1989. Therefore, perhaps his true 20 year anniversary is his reason for resigning. After that, Murray was responsible for some of the best years our club has ever had. 9-in-a-row; attracting players such as Goram, Laudrup and Gascoigne; our incredible run in the inaugural CL season in 1992/93; superb improvements to our stadium; these are all things that can be directly attributed to our custodian. For those, he should be quite rightly lauded and loved by many fans. However, after this admiration will come criticism as I'll show later. David Murray bought Rangers for Ã?£6million in 1988. The club, due to various factors, is now worth around Ã?£0-60million depending on one's viewpoint. When he sells that could yield a 1000% return on his initial investment. Of course, he has also contributed financially to the club (the share issues of 2000/2005 and the purchase of ENIC's shares for Ã?£9million in 2004); so has invested possibly as much as Ã?£80million during his 20 year tenure ââ?¬â?? but probably not as much as the Ã?£100million+ he claims. We have also spent over Ã?£200million on transfers and ground improvements such as the Club Deck ââ?¬â?? not to mention Murray Park; a training facility named in his honour. Obviously the supporters provided the bulk of the money for these investments but the money was spent which is more than can be said for boards of other clubs. This was all for the good of Rangers and more genuine reasons for us to respect Murray. However, he's not the omnipotent figure many fans think he is. He's made many mistakes, not least wasting Ã?£100 million over 3 years from 1998/99. Yes, his ambition and loyalty to Advocaat's attempt at CL success was exciting. Yes, many of us didn't harbour reservations at the time. But, he should have been much more careful. He was the custodian and he was responsible for our club. He should never have allowed ~Ã?£80million of debt to mount up. For that he is guilty of serious mismanagement and even he acknowledges mistakes were made. What he doesnââ?¬â?¢t acknowledge is that weââ?¬â?¢re still paying for them now. There are many other issues to also consider when examining the broader picture. Murray and Bain do deserve credit for being able to reduce the Ã?£80million debt down to less than Ã?£10million (circa 2006). Downsizing was necessary and without it we might not even exist. Thus, to still be able to compete and win 2 league titles during that time is worthy of some praise. Unfortunately, in recent times the finances appear just as problematic - so much so it appears we can't afford to buy any new players this summer as all income will go towards addressing our increasing debt. With regard to playing affairs, the reappointment of Walter Smith was a ââ?¬Ë?safeââ?¬â?¢ decision after the gamble of a young foreign manager being asked to succeed with similarly minimal funds as Smith has now. Generally, Murray could claim his managerial appointments have been successes though. Smith did well in his first spell, Advocaat brought exciting football and titles; and even McLeish can point to success in the face of adversity. Paul Le Guen didnââ?¬â?¢t work (though the Frenchman was as much to blame as anyone else) and Walter's second spell has borne fruit via our wonderful UEFA Cup run and the return of the SPL League Championship to Ibrox for the first time in 3 years. Nonetheless doubts remain about just how competitive we'll be moving forward. Of course not everything can be measured in pounds and pence. Weââ?¬â?¢ve shown over the last 2 years that we can beat Celtic home or away and compete with some of Europeââ?¬â?¢s better teams. Those are good signs and in our haste to criticise itââ?¬â?¢s easy to overlook the positive stuff. Huge improvements in fan behaviour can also be attributed in part to Murray. Generally, fans have accepted his efforts to modernise our thinking and we have been very successful. Itââ?¬â?¢s just a pity that the chairman hasnââ?¬â?¢t shown the same willingness to defend us when required. For that, much of the support rightly finds it difficult to respect a man who doesnââ?¬â?¢t always respect them. Indeed itââ?¬â?¢s this strained relationship which continues to undermine the chairmanââ?¬â?¢s lasting image amongst many fans. Dialogue with the support is at its lowest ebb and the promised supportersââ?¬â?¢ representation at board level still hasnââ?¬â?¢t happened (although we're perhaps to blame for that as well to a degree). That should be addressed at the earliest opportunity. After all when Murray talks about his own investments ââ?¬â?? our greater financial (not to mention emotional) input hasnââ?¬â?¢t been rewarded with the trust to help run the club. That takes us nicely to the question about who will succeed Murray in running the club. Alastair Johnston has an admirable CV and the fans who want a Rangers man in charge now have their wish - for the short-term at least. Can Johnston attract the kind of investment or new owner(s) the club obviously needs? The ongoing worldwide recession means interest will be even lower than it has been since SDM put the club up for sale 3 years ago. Who would want to buy a club with little room for manoeuvre in terms of finance with assets either siphoned off or unavailable due to long-term outsourcing? Of course Murray hasnââ?¬â?¢t ââ?¬Ë?asset-strippedââ?¬â?¢ the club but the decisions he has made in those respects have also been questionable. One only needs look at the club's balance sheet for that doubt to be validated. Essentially, for the latter part of Murrayââ?¬â?¢s reign, the club has stagnated and many questions remain about the short, medium and long term future of the business. Ironically, as it stands, the only person that can answer these questions is still our owner. Unfortunately, with his resignation from the board the evidence points to a man whoââ?¬â?¢d rather be anywhere than leading Rangers back to the dominance we seen in the 1990s. For thatââ?¬â?¢s what our club is lacking: genuine leadership; genuine ambition; genuine character and genuine hunger for success. So after yesterday's news, we're not any better off regarding knowing what our club's future will be. Would Murray really have left without ensuring the club is in safe hands with a sound business plan? Just how involved will he be behind the scenes? What will Alastair Johnston's outlook be and will it differ from the man who appointed him? Where does Martin Bain fit in? Are HBOS really calling the shots? To conclude, is SDM's resignation the genuine start of a new era at the club or just another illusion from a magician who's audience became too demanding even for this charismatic performer?

There have been a lot of stories, a lot of speculation and even worse - downright scare-mongering going on this summer when it comes to Rangers and it's finances. First off, let me state that I know full well we are not exactly in the optimum of financial health, I know that we are at the peak of our borrowing facility and I know that we are still having major issues with cash-flow at the moment. It still doesn't quite justify entirely the stealth cost-cutting and debt reduction exercises being carried out at Ibrox this summer to be honest. We have the same debt as Hearts yet they continue to recruit players, Kilmarnock have around �£15m worth of debt but operate with a turnover which is just a fraction of ours. Hamilton were even declared insolvent during a recent court case with former assistant manager John McCormack recently. Which begs the question: What is the motivation behind cost-cutting? Is it to reduce the debt? Definitely. Are there other reasons? Again, definitely....In my opinion at least. David Murray wants out of Ibrox and has done for a number of years now. There have been strong rumours that businessman Douglas Park has been interested in taking over from Murray, and Northern Ireland MP David Burnside has been credited with interest as well. But it is rumoured that when the due-dillgence procedure has taken place at the club - which has occured a couple of times supposedly - The debt levels and income streams simply don't justify the level of expenditure each party would require to make. So a Rangers side with a minimal wage-bill, serviceable even without Champions League football, and zero or reduced debt would surely be much more appealing. I genuinely think there is a strong possibility that the club will change hands within the next 12 months. David Murray's tenure has been very mixed - The last decade in particular has been dominated by a catalogue of off-field disasters - which has subsequently lead to a few of the on-field variety as well. Gambles that never paid off - Not spending cash when we should have - Spending cash when we shouldn't have....I could go on. It's pretty clear to me that whatever side of the fence you're on, fresh-thinking, new ideas and a new approach are required in the board-room at Ibrox. As our current chairman has struggled badly in an era when the club can't afford to spend it's way out of trouble. http://www.rangers.vitalfootball.co.uk/article.asp?a=515705

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QQLWF_ItzYs]Money Talks.[/ame]But it don’t sing and dance and it don’t walk. More and more I’ll acknowledge I’ve been concerned with the finances of Rangers FC. It used to be that it was only a game to me. Then David Murray came along and I even had a ‘Bank Of Rangers’ fiver on my wall, a big blown up thing that represented our financial might in relation to Celtic – and to be honest, I loved it. It was a kind of ‘We Are The People’ x 10; the ultimate partner for the trophies and happy days – we are much, much richer than YOU. GIRFUY as they say these days! Nowadays I feel that the off-the-park stuff is more important than it used to be; too important. I scrutinise the reports, I analyse what they mean, I interpret Rangers’ accounts and draw conclusions. I ask for views and points of view; I really do care about Rangers as a business, because I see it as Rangers’ way of securing its future at the level it we are accustomed to. But why? At the end of the day I got into all this as a young lad who loved football. Even in the early 80’s, I never cared about wages, sponsorship, TV rights, facilities, representation, communication. It just didn’t matter. I heard someone say the other day that back then they didn’t even care who the team manager was; just as long as Rangers were winning. I love the history of Rangers, but I have to be honest and say I’m more interested in the future. I worry about Rangers. I really do. And now I see what Rangers could be; much more than a football club and a business; more of a social enterprise, serving its community and a hub for all things blue, and the things we stand for. Rangers permeates all corners of life in the west of Scotland and beyond. Everybody knows our name. We are a huge and remarkable club. We are truly unique. And the more I think about it, the more I am beginning to find the financial and commercial focus on the club to be somewhat distasteful and a million miles from what the game should be all about. I know the world has changed from the 70’s and 80’s - I’ve seen it with my own eyes. I’m not hankering for a fuzzy-wuzzy past where everything was sweetness and light. I’m not pretending that everything was better in the 70’s or that modern life is rubbish. Far from it. But I do honestly yearn for the day when all we talk about is football. I bet a lot of people feel the same.

Before I start just let me say this is totally without any foundation , it's just my own thoughts no sources or rumours behind it . The way we have approached this year from Jan 1st till the present has been almost scatter gun like , any decent or at least any offer for any player seems to have been accepted whether to take players on loan or for transfer , the initial figure of removing �£4million from the wage bill has more than been reached along with getting around �£1.6 million ( once the players cut is removed as no one asked for a transfer ) for players in fees . This has left me wondering why the desperation for this type of actions , we all agree last season though brilliant to win the league , was a disaster from the point of view of player recruitment , with the vast majority being brought in too late for europe and leaving us with far to big a squad , any sane fan would realise that there would need to be some sort of balancing act , and few would agree with the majority of players leaving in fact some would like a few more join the ranks of the departed . However and this is where this season so far has been very strange , with so much riding yet again on the league it is very unlike Walter to go with such a thread bare squad , without bringing in any players , indeed Murray's lapdogs are now infact telling all that infact we need more players out the door before we can even get a bosman or a loan signing on board . I can only hope that this is being done as part of a takeover deal , such as Portsmouth's where they are preparing the finances before the sheikh takes over , if not then what exactly are the figures on our finances going to read, possibly like a horror movie if barrybaldy is correct . Never can the hopes of so many be laid at the feet of so few , god bless them I really hope they succeed ...