Search the Community

Bawsburst on RM hinting at something happening soon with this recently formed company by Laxey pic.twitter.com/Nc8zHXA8Dn So Laxey's Kingsnorth registers a new company called GreenWhiteStar UK PLC. How disgustingly ironic

http://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/sport/football/leeds-utd/new-leeds-owners-will-buy-back-elland-road-for-15m-1-6322034 BUYING back Elland Road for around £15m tops the list of priorities for Leeds United’s prospective new owners, the Yorkshire Post has been told. A consortium led by United managing director David Haigh is bidding to buy a 75 per cent stake in the Championship club. The group - which is believed to include Andrew Flowers, the managing director of current shirt sponsors Enterprise Insurance - have signed a share acquisition agreement with GFH Capital, the Dubai-based firm that purchased United from Ken Bates a year ago. Football League approval is now being sought as this buyout would be the second of the club in as many seasons. Providing there are no late hiccups, the Haigh-led consortium is expected to take charge early in the New Year. As revealed in this newspaper yesterday, re-signing former Player of the Year, Max Gradel, in the January transfer window is high on the list of targets for the prospective new owners. However, sources close to Haigh’s group have also made it clear to the Yorkshire Post that buying back Elland Road will be their top priority once at the helm. United’s home was sold to Manchester businessman Jacob Adler for a knockdown £8m price in November, 2004, as mounting debts threatened to drag the club under in its first year outside the Premier League. Ownership passed the following year to Teak Commercial Limited, a firm based in the British Virgin Islands. Included in the initial sale and leaseback deal with Adler - and something retained in the subsequent sale to Teak - was a buyback option that allows the club to purchase the stadium at a set price. That amount rises each October and today stands at £15m. Also subject to a raise of three per cent each October is the rent United pay to Teak, which this year will cost the club £1.4m. Since Elland Road was sold to Adler by the United board that was led by Gerald Krasner, United have paid around £11m in rent. Removing that financial millstone from around United’s neck will, the source close to Haigh’s group insists, be the overriding priority providing the expected takeover goes through early in 2014. Regardless of whether the club’s would-be new owners are successful or not in that quest, United’s tenancy in LS11 is secure thanks to the terms of the 2004 sale and lease-back arrangement - a deal in which the owner of a large asset, such as property, sells it and then immediately buys back from the buyer the right to use the asset under a lease for a fixed term at a pre-arranged rent. In United’s case, that agreement was for a 25-year lease that, once at an end in 2029, can be extended by a further quarter of a century. This means Leeds’ future at Elland Road is safe for at least the next 41 years. Haigh and his fellow would-be investors, however, are well aware that buying back the ground would be the clearest signal yet to supporters that the club is moving in the right direction. If they are successful in that quest, it will be the second time in a generation that United will have bought back their home thanks to improving financial fortunes. The first instance came in 1998 when Peter Ridsdale’s board paid £10m to Leeds City Council for the stadium, which along with the surrounding land had been sold 13 years earlier to the local authority for a quarter of that sum. Crippling debts of around £1.5m had forced the 1985 sale on the club. History then repeated itself in 2004, though by then the sums involved had multiplied dramatically. Krasner’s board had taken over Leeds in March of that year but relegation just a couple of months later hit United very hard. A fire-sale of players such as Alan Smith and Mark Viduka during that summer bought the club respite for a time but by the early months of the 2004-05 campaign it was clear Leeds were still in the financial mire. Debts that had, at one stage, stood north of £100m when the takeover went through had been slashed to around £25m. However, punishing repayments to Jack Petchey, a London-born businessman who had once been chairman of Watford and an Aston Villa shareholder, for a £15m loan taken out by Krasner and his fellow directors when buying the club had started to bite. After negotiations with a number of parties that included Sebastien Sainsbury and local businessman Norman Stubbs floundered, the United board was left with no option but to sell the club’s only two remaining assets of substance - Elland Road and Thorp Arch, the latter’s sale raising £4.2m. Once the two sales were concluded, the remaining debt of £9.2m to Petchey was cleared. United’s financial woes continued, however, and the club was subsequently sold to Bates the following January. At his first press conference, the former Chelsea chairman said: “It is our intention, in the fullness of time, to exercise those options and bring the land and stadium back where they belong.” Scarcity of funds, though, meant those wishes went unfulfilled with a bid to buyback Thorp Arch floundering at the 11th hour in 2009. Similar sentiments about purcahasing Elland Road were expressed by GFH Capital following their December 21 takeover last year but, again, nothing concrete came of the plans.

SATURDAY, 17 MAY 2014 19:30[h=2]Club Statement[/h]WRITTEN BY RANGERS FOOTBALL CLUB RANGERS have issued the following statement today: “Representatives of Rangers have met with a number of supporter groups over the past few days and discussed a wide range of topics. We again made it clear during these meetings that the club will not grant security over Ibrox to any organisation and therefore the 'Ibrox 1972' scheme can never achieve its objectives. In addition the club will not accept season ticket applications from third parties such as 'Ibrox 1972' on behalf of supporters. “In some of our discussions with fans, it was indicated that there was a wish for the Board to confirm that our statement of intention not to grant security over Ibrox could become a commitment that would last for 12 months. This has subsequently been discussed by the Board and the Board confirms that it will not be seeking to effect a sale and leaseback or grant security over Ibrox during that period of time. “The Board is rebuilding the Club by ensuring its financial stability and the integrity of its assets. “Whilst the Board is reported to have offered legally binding undertakings during a fan group discussion in relation to Ibrox and Murray Park, this is not the case. The Board is committed to high standards of corporate governance and is comfortable that it has at all times been very clear in providing consistent and unequivocal public comments on this subject. "Season ticket sales have continued at a good pace over the last few days and we appreciate the continued support shown by our loyal fans. "We trust that any supporters who may have been in any doubt about the Board's previous statements regarding Ibrox now have an additional level of comfort and any who may have made, or were considering making, a pledge of their season ticket money to 'Ibrox 1972' are clear that there is no prospect of that group achieving its aims."

http://www.redandblackshirt.com/

The Union - an umbrella group comprising six supporters' organisations - had been urging Gers followers to withhold season ticket cash. A company, Ibrox 1972 Ltd, has been set up with South Africa-based businessman Dave King and legendary captain Richard Gough as directors. The Union wanted the club to grant them security over both Ibrox Stadium and Murray Park training ground in return for the money. Wallace admitted last Friday that season ticket renewals had been slow and fears have also been expressed by some about the future of the club. But representatives from the organisation met with Wallace, non-executive director Norman Crighton and major shareholder Sandy Easdale. And Wallace, who has stated in the past that security will not be granted, told them the club could be prepared to give them a legally binding guarantee over Ibrox. However, the Union asked for an identical agreement over the club training ground at Murray Park and the club officials agreed to look into that possibility. But the talks were a huge step towards the bitter stand-off between fans and the club being brought to an end. A Union of Fans statement released on Wednesday night read: "Following a number of attempts for several weeks to arrange a meeting with chief executive Graham Wallace to discuss our proposals for security over Ibrox and Murray Park, the Union of Fans were invited by Mr Wallace to discuss this and other issues at a meeting at Ibrox. "Representatives of the Union of Fans met with Mr Wallace, non-executive director Norman Crighton and Sandy Easdale. "A proposal was made by Mr Wallace that, whilst the board would not grant a security, they could consider giving a legally binding undertaking which would protect Ibrox from sale, sale and leaseback or as any form of security for a loan or other finance. "We made it clear to Mr Wallace that we felt it was also appropriate that they provide the same undertaking for Murray Park. "Mr Wallace and Mr Crighton agreed to discuss this with the rest of the PLC board as a matter or urgency and further discussions between the PLC board and the Union of Fans will continue once this board meeting has taken place. "We believe we accurately conveyed the fears of supporters that either or both of these club assets could be lost to the club in a scenario where they were used for any sale and leaseback or other loan security. "Any proposal by the board will be evaluated by our lawyers and a decision will then be taken on how to move forward. We will keep fans full informed as discussions continue." Rangers did not comment on the meeting. GET RANGERS NEWS ALERTS BY EMAIL

“If you’re prepared to accept mediocrity because our owners are greedy fair enough. Me, I intend to do everything I can to root them out.” A quote from Gunslinger. So what are we doing as a support to root out the directors? I believe the answer is “Not a lot”. Let’s look at the two lots of people a majority of the fans want rid of – the Shareholders and the Directors. 1. The Shareholders There are 2 main ways that the shareholders can get to go or to lose control: a) Someone buys their shares – there is currently nobody who wants to buy their shares. Dave King has said he won’t do it. There are 2 fans’ vehicles for purchasing shares, both of whom are a long way away from getting enough cash to make a meaningful investment. They also both have the dilemma of raising cash and then deciding whether to use the cash to pay existing shareholders and therefore not a penny goes to the club, as happened recently with BuyRangers, or wait until there’s a share issue at some future point. They also run the risk of their shareholding being diluted. Let’s say they get 1% of the shares and then there’s a rights issue. They could find that their 1% has been reduced to 0.5% or even lower. Perhaps it needs yet another calamity like an administration to change the mindsets of the fans to fan ownership as they have consistently shown that a vast majority are not there yet. b) There’s a share issue of some sort, which dilutes their control in the way mentioned above. However what happens if they are the ones to put in the cash? They could increase their shareholding percentage. Dave King has said that he would be willing to invest, but only under certain circumstances. Are the current shareholders likely to structure an issue that sees them losing control to King? Very unlikely. Is King willing to invest that level of cash and not have a level of control? Very Unlikely. All of King’s actions seem to be aimed towards trying to force the existing shareholders and directors out without him having to spend any cash in doing so. He has built up a degree of animosity between him and the board and as such he has made it less likely that the board will turn round and make it easy for him to get control. The existing shareholders generally want an exit strategy and nobody is offering them one and they aren’t going to effectively have their shareholding become worthless. 2. The Directors Most Rangers fans are not impressed by the current Board, but nobody has offered any alternative since the Paul Murray faction got voted down at the AGM. Nobody has set out any level of vision for the future and King suffers from this criticism more than most. He has not set out detailed plans or any level of alternative. King set up his Ibrox 1972 Ltd company, asking for the club to give it security over its biggest assets. Does anyone seriously expect a quoted PLC to give security of its main assets to a third party company that apparently doesn’t have a season ticket holder or Rangers shareholder on its board or as a shareholder? There is no connection between this company and the club. As it stands, there’s no connection between the ownership and control of Ibrox 1972 Ltd and the support either. It’s almost as if King has come up with a vehicle that makes it impossible for the club to grant security, not that they would do it anyway. Perhaps that’s what King is hoping for? Many fans are not buying season tickets, partly due their opposition to the board and partly due to the fare on the park. For the fans who fall into the former category, is them withholding season ticket cash really going to chase out the directors? I really don’t think so. Why should it? Are the really just going to resign and walk away or are they going to carry on running the company in whatever financial situation it Is in? I would argue that it is the latter and they will continue run the club as best they can, with the lower income and therefore lower quality on the park. Many are there to do a job (presumably to the best of their ability) and less season tickets makes it more challenging but it is not a reason for them to resign from their job. Are the shareholders going to insist on a change of board due to lower season tickets? Unlikely, given that the gave the directors a vote of confidence at the AGM even after the club had spent the £22m from the share issue in 9 months. If they still retain the shareholders’ support after that then season ticket holder revolt isn’t going to make much difference. There is also the situation where Sandy Easdale controls the votes of over 26% of the shares and it means that he only needs 24% of other shares to get his way in most matters. The fans who are not renewing their season tickets have my admiration for the sacrifice that they are making and I understand their frustration as they want to do something and not renewing is something. However it doesn’t mean that what they are doing will result in a change or will make any difference to the positions of the directors. Even if the season ticket boycott did force a change in directors, would it change the overall way that the club is being run? Again, very unlikely. So what is the best hope for a change? We can only hope that Dave King has a change in heart and does decide to buy out the existing shareholders because otherwise I just don’t see a way out of this mess as we fans appear to be powerless against shareholders and directors who have no interest in engaging with the support and taking actions to keep them onside.

........No it's time for Dave King to step up and pay. KEITH believes it's time for Ibrox investor King to put his money where his mouth is with the club's Murray Park training ground under threat. IF Dave King is serious about rescuing Rangers then he had better get a move on. In fact, come to think of it, he may have procrastinated too long 
already because this basket case 
of a business is staring its next disaster dead in the eye. Very soon someone will have to blink and before you know it this club could find itself minus a training ground if it’s not careful. In five days from now the curtain will come down on season ticket renewals and when it does,
bedraggled chief executive Graham Wallace might as well sound the emergency klaxon because unless there is a late stampede between now and Friday, Rangers will be right back on the brink. Raising money against Murray Park might then become almost inevitable, assuming insolvency is to be avoided as Wallace so bullishly insists it will be. It was interesting to note that the current board made no comment at all about the security of their Auchenhowie HQ when categorising Ibrox as ‘sacrosanct’ the other day. The truth is Wallace was busy discussing the merits or otherwise of raising funds against Murray Park with former financial director Brian Stockbridge at the turn of the year. Stockbridge wanted to push the button back then but Wallace at least had enough sense to resist. However, Wallace also made it clear that such a scenario might need to be revisited at a later date and if the season ticket revenue really is about to be obliterated then that date might well be now. Also, given the enormous scale of Rangers financial requirements, there would seem little point in simply raising a couple of million quid in the form a secured loan – like the deal Wallace brokered with those nice hedge fund folk from Laxey Partners just to keep the floodlights on till the end of winter. A full-blown sale and leaseback would certainly bring in significantly more money but at what price to a club which continues to be robbed of its soul from the inside? Which brings us back to the man who would be King and his plotting in South Africa. King has lent his name to the Union of Fans’ plan to starve the club of its biggest single source of revenue but he’s done so from a distance, almost half-heartedly, while this club’s supporters have been busy whipping themselves up into a state of high doh. That King did not attend the launch of this scheme in person, nor even make sure that his recently- recruited wingman Richard Gough was there to deputise, sent out more muddled messages to these fans who want nothing more than a leader in whom they can place their trust along with their cash. But then this is the Rangers civil war we are talking about. If there is a way to mishandle public relations then you can bet your last blue pound someone in this abomination will find it – even though you can barely move for gurus spinning furiously for one camp or the other. King says his attempted coup is not in any way reliant on public opinion, which is probably just as well because he hasn’t done enough to win over the rump of the fans. The vast majority want to believe in him but need to see tangible proof of his intentions. If Friday’s final tally of sold season tickets is as low as many are predicting then this will be an
indication of how little these fans trust the characters inside their own boardroom rather than a show of faith in the man who wishes to topple them. It would also leave the board with a couple of options – selling off the family silver or engage immediately with King, who is ready to talk. So far, King has done nothing much more than kick up a stink by issuing sporadic flurries of statements, most of which have told us nothing we did not already know. He has been heavy on promises – talking boldly of blowing £30million worth of his children’s inheritance – but feathery light on substance. So if he is serious about acting – and for the record I’m sure he is – then right about now would seem like an appropriate moment for him to start digging deep. King has made clear his reluctance to line the pockets of the very
shareholders he blames for making such a mess of the club. While this is an admirable position, the more time passes, the less realistic it appears. And all the while, Rangers fans are wrestling with their own consciences and fretting over whether or not to hold their club to ransom. King could remove all that
confusion and guilt from their
shoulders at a stroke by ploughing some of his own millions into the very account that has been set up for their season ticket cash. If those who run the club will not accept his money then why would any individual feel the least bit bad about hanging on to their own £400? Better still though, King should rethink his strategy and find out exactly how much it would cost to make those shadowy investors lurking behind the likes of Margarita Blue Pitch Holdings and Margarita disappear once and for all. Ultimately, this is what will be required if Rangers are ever to be properly ‘cleansed’ and now Friday’s iceberg is approaching, maybe those lucky enough to have stuffed their pockets with penny shares might realise it’s time to abandon ship. Even if they sold now for as little as 20p a share they’d still make mind-boggling returns on their investments. The thought of making them rich might make King’s skin crawl but, even so, this would seem like a price worth paying. He could always ask Fergus McCann who had to perform a similar U-turn when bringing down the Kelly and White dynasty across the city. A deal could even be structured that would allow King to be given some of the money back, much like the £2.5m Ann Budge has just had to pony up to make sure Hearts are a 
Lithuanian-free zone. King could do any of the above and instantly cement his status as a genuine hero among the club’s rank and file. The longer he waits though the more time is running out for his club.

Ok, so it's silly season again! Post the latest transfer rumours in here please! OUT: Emilson Cribari - Out of contract. Andy Little - Out of contract. Signed for English League One side Preston North End. Chris Hegarty - Contract terminated by mutual consent - signed immediately for Linfield. Charlie Telfer - Contract extension rejected - signed immediately for Dundee Utd. Ross Perry - Contract terminated by mutual consent. Scott Gallacher - Contract terminated by mutual consent - signed for Hearts. IN: Kenny Miller - signed 1 year deal (with optional 1 year extension) on 4 June 2014. Darren McGregor - signed 1 year deal (with optional 1 year extension) on 11 June 2014. Kris Boyd - signed 1 year deal on 27 June 2014. Marius Zaliukas - signed 2 year deal on 11 July 2014 Lee Robinson - signed 1 year deal on 25 August 2014

Don't think we've had a discussion on Boyd before. Certainly haven't had on whether I have been pro-Boyd. Long time posters on here will know I was his biggest critic. However this season I think we've seen a different player and I cant believe I would ever say that if we are being linked with him Id like him to return - mainly due to the position we are in. I still think he is a poor 'footballer' as such but he is a good poacher / scorer. 18 goals this season has kept Kilmarnock in the league until the final day and I wouldn't bet against him scoring today against Hibs. Looking at some of his goals from highlights and pictures I think we have got a guy who has matured late and realised what being a professional is all about. Ive no doubt his ventures in England, Turkey and USA (all of which were poor) has developed the 'person' Kris Boyd. I thought we wouldn't see him play again but to be edging towards a Scotland call up shows the hard work he has put in and he also looks far more fitter and stronger. Perhaps he thought he had made it when he came to Ibrox first time around and being part of Fergusons gang made him feel untouchable. If we was still a top flight team challenging for titles this wouldn't even be a thread but if we ever needed someone WANTING to prove his worth and banging the goals in the championship it might be Boyd now. If Ally could only find some tactical knowledge then playing Templeton, Macleod, Shiels and Law in creative positions then Boyd would score 20+ goals in the championship. But then again if Ally had tactical knowledge we maybe wouldn't need Boyd as Clark, Little and Daly may have got high tallys this season also and we'd be happy with them going into next season. I reserve the rights to retract this statement.

http://vanguardbears.co.uk/ Evidence-Based Mathematics Written by: Ulster Loyal Wednesday, 7th May 2014 Much has been said and written about the finances of Britain's most successful sporting institution, Rangers Football Club. Speculation over the possibility of a second administration or likely direction of the share price has dominated Rangers based conversations in many a pub and many an internet forum. Not all of these conversations are helpful when they are presented in public, through various media, with no factual substance. They can subsequently cause unnecessary, widespread alarm and subject the club to destabilising influences, such as supporter boycotts and police investigations. The preferred way forward for all supporters should be to thoughtfully and objectively use the available information in Rangers' financial accounts to present a factual representation of our club's current business operations and forecast it's likely success going forward. Mathematics can help us to analyse the prospect of a company entering bankruptcy. On 25th December 2013, the following report was prepared, and posted on the Vanguard Bears forum, regarding the likelihood of Rangers going bankrupt: --- START OF ANALYISIS --- Rangers International Football Club (RIFC) has an Altman Z2-Score of 2.25; a statistical bankruptcy meter generated from a set of balance sheet ratios. Q – Are liquid assets a significant proportion of the assets? A – RISK •Testing: Working Capital/Total Assets > 0.2375 •RIFC Details: Working Capital/Total Assets = 0.018 Q – Do reinvested earnings make up a significant portion of the assets? A – SAFE •Testing: Retained Earnings/Total Assets > -0.1355 •RIFC Details: Retained Earnings/Total Assets = 0.34 Q – Are the assets relatively productive in terms of earnings? A – SAFE •Testing: Earnings Before Interest and Taxes/Total Assets > -0.082 •RIFC Details: Earnings Before Interest and Taxes/Total Assets = 0.019 Q – Does firm value compare favourably to its liabilities? A – RISK •Testing: Market Value of Equity/Book Value of Total Liabilities > 1.439 •RIFC Details: Market Value of Equity/Book Value of Total Liabilities = 0.89 Regarding the Altman Z2-Score: •Greater than 3.00 = good financial health. •Less than 1.80 = a company is in the distress zone and is in serious financial trouble; the distress zone is 80-90% accurate in predicting bankruptcy. •Rangers' score of 2.25 indicates it is not entirely safe from financial distress and investors should be cautious. --- END OF ANALYSIS --- The problem with supporters warning of the imminent arrival of another financial collapse at Rangers is that they have no statistical analysis to give credibility to their claims. When the share price was at around 33p, it was my opinion, reached using mathematical evidence, that the likely intrinsic value of Rangers was closer to 25.67p. I made similar comments in October 2013 when the share price was around 43p. The following analysis regarding an estimate of the true share price valuation of RIFC was also carried out in December: --- START OF ANALYSIS --- a) Discounted Cash Flow Valuation Method (forward looking growth model): 0p per share; 100% overvalued (due to negative cash flows that are not forecast to increase in the next 8 years). This is based on the following inputs: •The company's sustainable cash flow is -£12.61m (taken as the average between latest free cash flow (-£18.9m) and 3 year average free cash flow (which includes 2 years of £0 due to not having data for those years, making this valuation input more unreliable)) •Expected growth rate of cash flow of 0% for the next 8 years (3 year average cash flow growth, 5 year average cash flow growth, year 1 forecast earnings per share growth and year 2 forecast earnings per share growth are normally added as an input here but that data is not available for Rangers at this stage, making this valuation input more unreliable) •The company should settle into a long term growth rate of 3% (if we don't have reliable forecasts, we default to normal inflation levels and that is what we've done here) •Investors require a return of 15% for the risk they are taking (due to being a small cap company, 9% would be applicable to large cap companies) b) Earnings Power Value Valuation Method (zero growth model based on current earnings): 25.67p per share; 23.4% overvalued. This is based on the following inputs: •Sustainable level of revenue is £19.11m (latest revenue; 3 year average revenue and 12 month rolling forecast revenue is normally included but we don't have these inputs for RIFC, making this valuation input more unreliable) •Across the economic cycle, the operating margin in 7.8% (we normally take an average of a 5-10 year operating margin and a trailing 12 month operating margin but we don't have that data for RIFC, making this valuation input more unreliable) •On average the company see £0m of 'exceptionals' (we normally deduct the long term average of non-recurring charges but we don't have this data for RIFC, making this valuation input more unreliable) •15% of historic selling, general and administrative expense has funded growth (typically 15% to 50% of this is added back to a company's Earnings Power Value to make up for the fact some of that expenditure went towards funding growth as opposed to maintaining the existing asset base; Earnings Power Value only takes into account current earnings and is a zero growth model; we don't have enough data for RIFC on this value so we assume the minimum standard of 15%) •Each year, the company spends -£2.48m on maintenance capital expenditure (capex) (maintenance capex can be calculated by subtracting growth capex from total capex; again, we don't have long term forecasts for this based on historical figures so we are largely estimating these on limited results from the previous earnings report) •Investors require a return of 15% for the risk they are taking (due to being a small cap company, 9% would be applicable to large cap companies) c) "Relative to Sector" Valuation Method: 92.51p per share; 176.2% undervalued Based on the following inputs: When we compare RIFC to the Hotels and Entertainment services sector, we have the following valuation ratios for RIFC: •Price To Book Value: 0.39 • Price To Tangible Book Value: 0.57 • Enterprise Value To Earnings Before Interest, Tax, Depreciation and Amortisation: 3.14 • Enterprise Value To Operating Profit: 8.38 • Enterprise Value To Sales: 0.66 By comparison, we have the following corresponding valuation ratios for companies in the Hotels and Entertainment Services sector: •Price To Book Value: 1.95 • Price To Tangible Book Value: 2.19 • Enterprise Value To Earnings Before Interest, Tax, Depreciation and Amortisation: 12.7 • Enterprise Value To Operating Profit: 18.3 • Enterprise Value To Sales: 2.10 The Relative To Sector Valuation Method compares RIFC's valuation against the median multiples of the company's sector peer group. d) Net Current Asset Value Valuation Method: 0p per share; 100% overvalued Based on the following inputs: The company's current assets (long term assets are not included) are £16.5m • Cash And Short Term Investments (trailing 12 months) £11.2m •Total Receivables, Net £5.23m •Total Inventory £0.085m •Other Current Assets £0.000m The company's total liabilities are £24.7m • Total Current Liabilities £15.1m •Minority Interests £0.25m •Deferred Tax £7.82m •Total Long Term Debt £0.96m •Total Other Liabilities £0.52m The shares outstanding are 65,095,856m e) Net Working Capital Valuation Method: 0p per share; 100% overvalued Based on the following inputs: •The company's Cash and Short Term Investments are £11.2m • The company's Inventory is £0.085m • The company's Receivables are £5.23m • The company's Total Liabilities are £24.7m • The Shares Outstanding are 65,095,856m f) Tangible Book Value Valuation Method: 59.1p; 76.4% undervalued •The company's Book Value (total assets minus liabilities) is £56.9m • The company's Intangible Assets are £18.4m • The company's Goodwill is £0.000m • The Shares Outstanding are 65,095,856m --- END OF ANALYSIS --- The following commentary from the 10th of January 2014 further explained the information provided on the 25th of December 2013. --- START OF COMMENTARY --- "As you can see there are only three valuation methods that assign a value greater than 0p to Rangers; Earnings Power Value, Tangible Book Value and Relative To Sector. There are only two valuation methods that assign a share price that is higher than the current level of 28.5p. However, investors likely won't use these methods to value Rangers, and inform their investing decisions, for the following reasons, thus eliminating any mathematical reason to think that the current share price is cheap, based on an objective analysis of the company's financial results: Relative To Sector is an unreliable valuation because it compares Rangers to the Hotels and Entertainment Services sector, based on how the stock is classified by the stock market. It would be better to only compare Rangers to other football clubs but there is a shortage of listed football clubs and the sample size would be too small to draw any conclusions. The Tangible Book Value method is good at valuing the club's assets. However, value of assets is very different to the value of the business. If the assets are not generating sufficient income to make a profit, then investors lose confidence in the ability of those assets to generate future growth and profitable cash flows. As a result, the business is worth less to those that may seek to invest in it. If the company is liquidated due to large debts, the investors likely won't see the value of the assets they invested in because shareholders are below creditors in the capital structure of a business. Therefore, an investor does not invest on the basis of the book value of the assets of a company but rather the ability of those assets to generate a return on investment. Now, the only method left that assigns a value to Rangers, and would be a realistic evaluation of the club's true worth as a business, in the opinion of investors (which is largely what dictates the share price), is the Earnings Power Value method. This valuation metric values the club based on current earnings and assumes no growth in the company (which can't be measured anyway due to negative cash flows). It is a realistic valuation because it makes no assumptions about future growth, which can be inaccurate, and is only an analysis of the present situation. According to the Earnings Power Value method, Rangers is valued at 25.67p. Therefore, the current share price of 28.5p is close to being a fair valuation of Rangers. Rather than speculating on boardroom battles and their subsequent effect on the share price, I have simply looked at the value of the business from an objective, mathematical view. In the long term, a company's share price will converge with its Intrinsic Value. It's just mathematics and market forces. The downwards movement in the share price of Rangers comes as no surprise to me." ---END OF COMMENTARY--- The best way to comment on the financial situation at Rangers is by working with the facts, not by letting unfounded allegations cloud your judgement. History will show us which commentary - evidence based mathematics here on Vanguard Bears or the agenda-driven, emotional rhetoric from power-seeking, self-proclaimed fans' representatives - proved to be an accurate account of the financial picture at Rangers. It is now the 7th of May 2014 - Rangers is still operating and the share price is 23.00p.

The Blue Order is confirming that we are reluctantly not renewing our season tickets for the 2014/15 season. It is, however, our intention to buy tickets for home and away games on a match-by-match basis so that we can continue to give our full support to our team. Unfortunately, until further notice, we are unable to accommodate any new requests to join TBO or for seat transfers into our section however we would welcome others to congregate with our group in BF5. As part of the Union of Fans umbrella group, TBO have been at the forefront of recent protests against the board and we strongly urge Rangers FC to engage openly with concerned supporters and potential investors to safeguard the club's future.

I'm having a light chat on FB on ex players and their lack of action since admin. So, should they have done more when we went into administration and months afterwards? Some points from me: Bomber got a lot of hassle for speaking up when he did. Okay, he might have lacked the appropriate skills but the message was still there. A portion of the support and past colleagues flung him under a bus IMO. Gough was approached early days in admin to help with SaveRangers and never got involved. I'm willing to move on if he can help with supporters now though. Many players gave interviews with the usual sound bytes but never thought of standing besides the support. March to Hampden is a classic example where Sandy led the support besides influential fans...an excellent opportunity to show unity with the people who adored them but not one stuck their head above the parapet. Disappointing when Sandy and Ally were in the trenches with supporters. Kris Boyd got involved in BuyRangers and certain players walked away in very disappointing circumstances. So, your opinion on the current status of ex players and their actions during and after administration?

“We note the latest attempt by this board to mislead and hold Rangers fans to ransom. Their latest “give us your money or the seat gets it” ultimatum is just another in a long line of misjudgements this board has made about the mood amongst the support in general. The fact that those now in the crosshairs of this board are a lifelong Rangers fan who has ploughed millions of his own money into the club with no return, an iconic captain from one of the club’s most successful ever periods and a group of Rangers fans attempting to secure the home of our football club, says more about this board than we ever could. There is no attempt to deprive the club of funds. This is made very clear in the security proposal and the board’s ham fisted attempt to misrepresent this is one of the few transparent things they have done since coming to power. No money will be taken from fans unless security is granted and we are of the opinion that the board’s reluctance to discuss granting security may well rapidly change. Our public comments about Mr Wallace are not personal but have been based on his binding pronouncements on matters of huge importance which have been at best misleading, broken promises for engagement with fans, attempts to blame fans for the current precarious position of the club and a complete lack of any progress in bringing much needed investment into the club. We welcome the fact that the entire board have now publicly taken responsibility for all of these actions. Once again we see meaningless sound bites with absolutely no substance to back them up. The result, no doubt, of the expensive PR man hired by this board with more urgency than a Chief Scout. What “significant progress” has been made? How will this “bright future” we are promised come about when the investment committee have failed to secure a single pound of investment? Rangers is certainly “dear to all of us”, the Rangers support. We have no idea why this board would attempt to claim the same when there is not a single fan amongst them. We do not believe that Rangers fans will fall for this again. We’ve seen it far too many times in the past two years. “ - See more at: https://www.ibrox1972.co.uk/statements/#sthash.5zQnzija.oJfk0OFG.dpuf

Backed by Dave King, Richard Gough and the Union Of Fans https://www.ibrox1972.co.uk/

@Martin1Williams: Sons of Struth to hand out red cards to allow #Rangers fans to protest against the board & their business review at Dunfermline

DAVE KING has savaged Rangers’ 120-day review and branded it good news for CELTIC fans. The former Ibrox director dismissed chief executive Graham Wallace’s findings — claiming an office junior could have produced the same in a day.

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/police-probe-launched-after-rangers-3464370 Forgive me, but I think things have just taken a particularly unedifying turn for the worse.

RANGERS chief executive Graham Wallace has insisted that major shareholder Sandy Easdale was not speaking for the Ibrox club when he cast serious doubt on their financial position and repeated his own assertion there is “no threat” of a second administration. Easdale, who controls more than 26 per cent of the shares in Rangers, described the club’s situation as “fragile” in a BBC Scotland interview ahead of Wallace’s publication yesterday of his business review and strategic plan for the League 1 champions. The long-awaited document painted a damning picture of Rangers’ operations since its business and assets were *purchased by Charles Green’s consortium in May 2012 following the descent into administration and liquidation under Craig Whyte’s ruinous tenure. Despite raising £70.7 million through a share issue, season ticket sales and commercial income between that date and December 2013, only £3.5m was left at the end of last year. Wallace’s review admits the club “mismanaged almost all of its cash reserves following administration” and that a “perfect opportunity to rebuild Rangers has been completely missed”. Wallace has now set out a strategy which will require capital funding of up to £30m over the next three years and which he believes can culminate in Rangers winning the Premiership title in 2017 and qualifyingfor the Champions League. The club intend to have another share issue later this year to raise cash, but their immediate financial position is dependent on the sale of season tickets against the backdrop of former director Dave King’s call for supporters to instead place their renewal money in a trust fund. But, although Wallace *admitted poor season ticket sales would have an impact on the club’s financial operations, he distanced himself from Sandy Easdale’s bleak assessment and the possibility of a second *administration at Ibrox. “Sandy Easdale’s comments were made by him in his *capacity as a shareholder,” said Wallace. “He’s not a director of the PLC board, so they were not made in a capacity in respect of the PLC company. “I’ve gone on record before to say there would be no threat of administration and my position today is exactly the same. There is no change to my view based on the club’s current position and our future projections. “Sandy Easdale wasn’t put out to comment by the club. “He made them as a shareholder. You would have to speak to him directly to ask the context in which he made those comments. “If you are asking me if ‘administration II’ is a possibility, then I’m saying categorically ‘No’. There would need to be a significant reduction in season ticket renewals to present a major problem to the club.” Wallace denied that the current level of season ticket sales was as much as 9,000 down on the same period last year. But the situation has been further complicated by the withdrawal of credit and debit card services to pay for season tickets after the company who processed them for the club *demanded security over Ibrox Stadium to protect itself against any potential liabilities. Rangers turned down that *request and supporters will now only be able to purchase season tickets by bank transfer, cash or cheque payment. “We have extended the season ticket renewal window through to 16 May and we will monitor the progress of the fans renewing over the coming weeks and assess it,” added Wallace. “There is no sense of panic – no sense of panic at all. Season ticket sales have been slow and I don’t think that’s surprising. A lot of people have been waiting to see what we were going to see coming out of the review, a sense of comfort and security that if they put their money in, the company is still going to survive, but also a sense of ambition in terms of where we want to take the club. “We’ve never said that we would look to run this club on a limited cost basis. What we did say was that we would look at every pound we were spending and ask ourselves if we were spending it in the right areas. I think we’ve been true to that. “So what we’re setting out is a summary of the position as it was, an assessment of where we are today but, more importantly, a vision of where we want to take the club over the next three to five years. We’ve spent a *decent amount of time on a proper robust business plan. “I said at the time of the AGM that there was no point in going out and looking to raise funds if you haven’t got a robust plan that sits behind that. “So that’s what we’ve done and I very much hope that the Rangers fans will look at what we’ve said and support us with a sense of comfort that we’re running the club in the right way, that we have a sense of ambition and that their aspirations for a successful team on the field is equally matched by those of us in the boardroom who are *trying to grow and develop the club.” What Wallace described as a “small number” of staff will be made redundant as a result of the review findings. He also outlined plans for two new major roles at the club – a chief football operations officer, responsible for player talent identification, scouting and recruitment, and a chief commercial officer tasked with maximizing club revenues. http://www.scotsman.com/sport/football/spfl-lower-divisions/wallace-at-odds-with-easdale-over-rangers-finance-1-3389705

According to STV the review will be published to LSE today as planned. Please ensure all discussion takes place in this thread where appropriate. Full review for download here: http://t.co/HNRfyvKDAe

Rangers chief executive Graham Wallace is expected to reveal some of the contents of his 120-day business review on Friday. Having announced that he was embarking on the process at the annual meeting of shareholders in December, it has become the focus of attention, a symbol of the intentions of the current board but also of Wallace's ability or willingness to win over the Rangers support by being open and transparent. So what are the main issues and why is the completion of the review considered so significant? Here are the main questions ahead of its publication. Is it not just normal practice for a new chief executive to examine the business? Yes, but having made the pledge at the AGM - which had been built up into a momentous occasion by the attempts of four nominees, Paul Murray, Alex Wilson, Scott Murdoch and Malcolm Murray, to be appointed to the board - Wallace tied himself into his outcome. Even the timescale was scrutinised, since football clubs are essentially simple businesses to understand, with fixed costs and cash flows. It could have conceivably been completed in a quarter of the time, yet the 120-day deadline passed on Thursday 17 April with only notification from the club that an update would be published eight days later. Wallace has acknowledged that cuts are required, since costs are higher than revenues, so the review is expected to reveal how he intends to rebalance the business but also how fresh investment will be sought. It has attracted such attention, much to Wallace's exasperation, that it has become the defining moment of his regime so far. How specific will the update be? That is the key point. Having asked for 120 days and then taken longer to produce it, the expectation is that the review will provide significant detail and clarity about the way the board intends to rebuild Rangers. Wallace was only appointed late last year so cannot be held accountable for the spending of money raised when Rangers International Football Club was launched on the alternative investment market and the two tranches of season-ticket income. That is in the past and supporters and investors also want to know how future funding requirements will be met. Rebalancing the business by cutting costs will buy time but will not address the need for new investment. The playing squad needs refreshed - with departures as much as arrivals - the football infrastructure needs modernised and improved, and there are maintenance requirements at Ibrox and Murray Park, all of which needs to be paid for. What options does Wallace have? He is a chief executive restricted by circumstance. To meet costs, Rangers needed to seek a £1.5m loan in February from shareholders - Sandy Easdale and George Letham, although the latter's loan was the replacement for one provided by the majority shareholders, Laxey Partners, who were being paid a higher fee. Rangers have no financial slack, with cash reserves having run out and no access to credit. Season-ticket sales are crucial, since the interim results released in March revealed that going concern status was only granted on the basis that there would be a rise in uptake and an increase in prices. How much money comes in from renewals will determine how long Rangers can operate without seeking external funding. If the renewals fall, and there is material doubt about the business's ability to trade for the next 12 months, any season-ticket income ought to be ring-fenced to protect it. Is a fresh share issue likely, then? Wallace has said in the past that the business will need to return to the market to raise finance. His intention has been to complete the review, identify the funding requirements and then take a business plan to shareholders and potential investors. Dave King, the former Rangers director, has spoken of his intention to invest again, despite losing £20m that he put into the club under Sir David Murray's ownership. King has been critical of the board and has supported the Union of Fans' plans for a season-ticket trust fund, which would pool supporters' renewal money but only give it to the club in return for security over Ibrox and Murray Park, although the current directors are on record as saying they have no intention of seeking borrowing against the two main property assets. If King was to underwrite a new share issue, though, current shareholders would need to reinvest to maintain the size of their stakes and King could end up fundamentally changing the shareholder dynamic and effectively taking control of the business. If season-ticket sales do fall, is there a threat of administration? Without enough season-ticket revenue, Rangers will be unable to trade for the next 12 months without drastic cost cutting. A second administration can be avoided if the board seek external funding, with the only likely source being a rights issue. This requires shareholder approval, although it is questionable if it would raise enough funds with the share price currently being so low. This is where King wants to enter the fray, but those currently in control of the club would likely lose their grip on power. It is this impasse that Wallace needs to find a way round. His own credibility is on the line, as well as his professional judgement. Can Wallace win the fans over? Anybody taking the role of chief executive after Charles Green and Craig Mather would have faced an onerous task; supporters were weary and cynical. Wallace has made significant decisions - such as removing the finance director, Brian Stockbridge, and the PR consultant, Jack Irvine - but the Union of Fans has asked if he has removed the bonus culture at Ibrox and sought clarity on his own remuneration package. King also posed pointed questions about whether or not the board were seeking finance in December, at a time when Wallace was insisting that there was enough cash in the bank to see them through to the end of the season. He has been a chief executive under scrutiny and that will become more focused when some of the contents of the review are released. It has a lot of expectation to meet. http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/27134373

Lifted from 200% (via newsnow)...

APRIL 23, 2014 UNION OF FANS STATEMENT: 23/04/14 by Union of Fans in Statements Ahead of Graham Wallace’s long awaited, and much anticipated, review we felt it would be helpful to reiterate what we are expecting to see from the CEO. It has now been over four months since Mr Wallace’s AGM pledge and we do expect, given the length of time it has taken, that this business review will give a full and comprehensive picture of the way forward for the club. We expect to see a full breakdown of the how the club arrived at the point where it required to borrow funds simply to complete the current season. This should include a full breakdown of where the IPO money went. In particular, detail of the sky high placement costs, related fees and who those fees were paid to and why. We expect to see full detail of who will be providing the £30-£50M required to take Rangers back to the level we should be operating at, in the absence of this board accepting the offer of investment from Dave King. We also expect to be told exactly when this will be provided, on what terms and a clear plan of how it will be used to rebuild the club both on and off the park. We hope that this review will not simply be more, vague, corporate speak from Mr Wallace. We want to see tangible, measurable progress and firm commitments on the huge investment required. Anything less will be a damp squib, especially since we have already seen that we cannot even rely on public, binding statements from this board. For our own part, the UoF have been making steady progress on the setup required for the season ticket fund. We understand the frustration of fans who wish to contribute to this but we would ask them to understand that we must ensure it is setup properly, legally and with total transparency. We thank them for their patience and can assure them that an alternative to placing blind faith in this board will be in place shortly. A company is now in place with Dave King as a director and Richard Gough and others to follow shortly. This will be the vehicle to hold the security should the board see fit to grant it. We will have a website in place within the next 10 days, ahead of the May 6th deadline, where fans can register their details and securely place their season ticket money. This money will only be passed to the club in return for season tickets if security is granted over Ibrox and Auchenhowie. Those are our only conditions. If that security is not granted then fans will retain their money and can decide themselves how to proceed at the start of the new season. The payment mechanism we are using means that although fans enter into a binding commitment to have their season ticket money debited in the event of security being granted, no money will be removed from their account until that security is granted. We will provide full detail of this on the website when it launches. In the meantime, we would ask fans who are considering using their season ticket money to try to secure our vital club assets to hold off renewing. We understand the pressures being applied both emotionally and otherwise, in terms of payment mechanisms, but it is time for us to take a stand against two years of corporate pillaging of our club. We can secure our club’s home against a backdrop of further financial uncertainty, but only with the help of the supporters. We would like to make those on auto renewal, who paid over four months last year, aware that they have to cancel in writing to the ticket office prior to 28th April. The email address to do so is webmail@rangers.co.uk. Season ticket money is the main power the fans have and we would ask them to use it for positive change.

Help required tonight. Meet at Ibrox underground at 6.45pm.

WITH boardroom civil war on the horizon at Hampden, MailSport unearths secret hijack plot and asks 'Has the SPFL gone power crazy?'. The SPFL’s blindside run at the SFA’s powerbase is about two things – control and cash. But the clubs’ push for power could end up costing the game MILLIONS in grassroots sponsorships. The professional clubs would take complete control of the development budget for football in Scotland if they won the day with their resolution. They believe the money could be better spent under their own umbrella and have also made a play to take control of the main board of the SFA. However, big-money backers of the game – like Tesco Bank, McDonald’s, sportscotland and the government-backed Cashback for Communities scheme – base their contributions on the fact that they are all-inclusive and not aimed at the elite end. MailSport believes all of these relationships – plus others with local authorities – would be in jeopardy if the pro clubs took control and ran the game to their own ends. The two boards will meet on Tuesday, brought to the table for the first time in a year to discuss the proposals – and the pressure will be on to avert a civil war in Scottish football. Revealed: The secret copies of four explosive resolutions the SPFL have proposed for the SFA's AGM. Here’s everything you need to know about the resolutions: Q/ So what do the SPFL want? The resolutions in a nutshell: 1. The Professional Game Board (PGB) provides one representative – Celtic’s Peter Lawwell – to the seven-man main board of the SFA but the SPFL want this increased to two. 2. Currently the president and vice president of the SFA must have served a minimum of a year on the PGB or Non-PGB, as well as four years on the SFA Council and have attended a minimum of eight Council meetings in five years to qualify for a nomination. The SPFL want to do away completely with these criteria. 3. The SFA main board control the budget for football development, from Mark Wotte’s performance department to the grassroots programme for kids and coaches run by Jim Fleeting and Andy Gould in Scotland. The SPFL feel the professional game should control this entire pot and want the PGB – in other words, the senior clubs – to take control. 4. The main board currently control the ability to elect any club for full membership. The SPFL want that right to be passed to the clubs to approve or veto new members. Q/ What’s the grand plan behind them, then? Individually, the four resolutions wouldn’t be as threatening but it’s their cumulative effect that could have grave consequences. The end game? The clubs will have two from the PGB on the SFA board plus control of a hand-picked president and vice president – thereby controlling the seven-man board with a majority of four, thus controlling the SFA. The clubs would also have access to the money currently used to fund the development of the game. They would also control future votes by being able to stifle any additional membership requests which would jeopardise their power of veto if they vote as a group. Q/ Why shouldn’t the pro game be better represented rather than the juniors and amateurs having a disproportionate say? They probably should – but if there are no checks and balances of their powers, is it good for the game as a whole to have pro clubs with vested interests running the entire game from the national team down to the grassroots? If push comes to shove with money and power, who will they seek to serve other than themselves? Q/Okay, but the current system still allows long-term blazers gaining power on the back of nothing but good attendance. Also true, and the SFA main board IS weak – the system does need looked at to allow more appropriate talent to rise to the top. Q/So this resolution is a good thing? Yes – and no! If there’s no need for office bearers to be time-served, you could end up with flavour-of-the-month fly-by-nights parachuted in by the clubs without any examination of their bona fides or their intentions. It’s possible that we could see some real talent and acumen appointed – but you’re relying solely on the judgment of the clubs to find it. Q/ What do they need to pass the resolutions? Each vote requires 75 per cent approval from the 94 members. Q/ Will they get what they need? They’re not speaking for all 42 clubs because a cursory call round indicates they haven’t actually consulted the rank and file. It’s unlikely they would get universal membership approval for all of it – the perception will be that the top 12 clubs will stand to benefit the most. Q/ Hang on, it’s Mike Mulraney of Alloa proposing all of the resolutions, though? He was one of three lower-league chairmen elected to the SPFL board last summer along with Les Gray (Hamilton) and Bill Darroch (Stenhousemuir). The weight of the Premiership members – Stephen Thomson (Dundee United), Duncan Fraser (Aberdeen) and Eric Riley (Celtic) – will be behind this but having Alloa, Stenny and Accies involved lends it an ‘everyman’ look ... not just being driven by the big clubs for their own gain. Q/ What about the cash, then – how much is at stake? Hard to put an exact figure on it but so much of it is ring-fenced for specific grassroots and community use, it’s not nearly as much as they think. The irony is the biggest chunk of the performance strand of it – around £2m – is used for Club Academy Scotland. So the clubs already benefit. Just not to the extent they think they should. Q/Why do the clubs feel the need to control it then? A couple of reasons. They don’t like the way Wotte is running things, they don’t think the performance strategy is worth what it costs, they don’t like the lack of control and input they have over performance schools and, simply, they see money they don’t have and they want it. They still don’t have a sponsor and a lack of cash will see them struggle to fulfil their promise of jam for all down through the divisions. It’s ironic considering the SFA has underwritten the only decent thing they’ve achieved as a body – the Premiership play-offs – to the tune of £1.5m. Q/ Are they right about the performance strategy, though? It’s still early but there is evidence the strategy is having an effect. Scotland won the Victory Shield at Under-16 level for the first time in 15 years. The U-17s have made the UEFA Finals in Malta, winning all three games in their elite round. The U-19s are in the elite round in England next months. The women’s team are well on their way to the World Cup in Canada with a 100 per cent record from six qualifiers, a feat that could earn the SFA close to seven figures. Throw in the fact the national team are back up to No.22 in the world rankings and they have a decent claim to their strategy working. Q/ But what about the rest of the game outwith the clubs? That’s the big worry. The SFA has overarching responsibility for the game as a whole and its development from the ground up. At last count, there are 130,768 registered players in Scotland from the youths to the amateurs to welfare to the women’s game. Meanwhile, the SPFL’s development branch – Club Academy Scotland, for pro youths from 11 up – sits at 3,185. Throw in the first teams and the clubs account for around three per cent of the football players in Scotland. Q/ Surely they should be the SPFL’s focus? They are. A working group set up between the organisations is looking at streamlining Club Academy Scotland and clearing out the jersey fillers and creating more ‘best v best’ football at the elite level. However, the clubs don’t like the performance schools and that they have no say in their operation. What some of them do like, though, is the idea of regional academies like the Forth Valley experiment involving Falkirk, Stenhousemuir and East Stirling. Q/ What benefit is there in the clubs taking on responsibility for the rest of it? Very little, if any. All they see is a top-line figure and pound signs. The problem, however, comes with the fact that much of the money is simply used to leverage other funding. For example, £476,000 is budgeted for a community programme that helps fund 70 coaches across the country – however most of their salaries are paid by local authorities through partnerships with the SFA. These partnerships would disappear if councils thought they were simply funding the professional game rather than its community branch. Q/ What about the other backers of grassroots football? Their visions all involve inclusivity and community benefit. McDonald’s work with all the home associations and have invested more than £1m every four years over more than a decade committed to growing the game. Likewise Tesco Bank, with £1.2m over the past four years. The government’s Cashback scheme has pumped in £2.2m over three years. On Wednesday, Regan and Fleeting were in the Isle of Lewis to unveil a new facility at Back that has received nearly £500,000 from Cashback, sportscotland and the Big Lottery. These resolutions would leave the pro clubs responsible for this kind of commitment to remote communities. Would they be interested? The Movers and Shakers The looming SFA AGM is shaping up to be one of the stormiest in the organisation’s 141-year history. Delegates will consider the four resolutions that would effectively hand control of the SFA main board to the clubs. Alloa chairman and successful businessman Mike Mulraney (right) is the name on the resolutions. He wants clubs to elect an extra member to the board – in addition to Celtic’s Peter Lawwell (left). SFA chief executive Stewart Regan (far right) has a fight on his hands. http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/scottish-football-looks-set-civil-3434596

IN ROBERT Bolt’s play and film, A Man For All Seasons, Sir Thomas More assembles his numerous domestic staff to break the bad news that he has fallen on irredeemably hard times. “I am no longer a great man,” he begins. “And since I am no more a great man, I no longer need a great household. Nor can I afford one. You will have to go.” Here was a practical demonstration of the kind of acute insight and quick wits that gave rise to the former Lord Chancellor’s reputation as one of 16th-century England’s most formidable intellects. Of course, More would also have been quick to acknowledge that even the humblest peasant farmer, faced with financial catastrophe – a failed crop, say – would have been similarly aware instantly of the necessity of a protracted period of austerity, or even abandonment of his smallholding and relocation as an employee on a steady, if modest, income. It is a grasp of elementary economics that seems somehow to have eluded anyone charged with executive duties at Rangers throughout the years since the instigator of the old club’s decline, David Murray, began the large-scale, reckless extravagance that led to calamity. Since then, despite the onset of administration and liquidation and passing through the hands of a succession of regimes to the present board of directors, the Glasgow institution has existed in a constant state of financial vulnerability, with no-one among the numerous sets of “saviours” apparently willing to identify certain damaging truths and take appropriate remedial action. This speaks of a culture problem at Ibrox, one that became entrenched during the 140 years that preceded liquidation in 2012 and has generally not even been acknowledged, far less addressed, despite the overwhelming evidence of the need to abandon principles that have been rendered wasteful by monetary imperatives. Chief among these actions is to emulate Thomas More and concede that Rangers are no longer a great club. That is, “great” in the sense of magnitude, as opposed to their historic high achievement and the resultant command of the affections and allegiances of many thousands of followers. An organisation whose annual turnover once was close to £60 million has now, according to the latest returns, shrunk to £19m – and even that amount is likely to be reduced again at the end of the current financial year. Yet, in the wake of liquidation of the old club and the birth of the new, the directors saw fit to sanction a yearly wage bill of around £7m for players charged with winning the fourth- and third-division championships. Salaries of non-playing personnel make the total around £9m, while the general costs of running the operation drain the kitty of £1.4m per month. These ludicrously high outgoings having to be met entirely from the club’s working capital, since their history of leaving behind creditors owed millions when entering administration means they no longer have access to credit lines at the banks. Despite the obviously perilous condition of their finances (a recent emergency loan of £1.5m from private individuals required simply to remain solvent until the end of the season), numerous supporters are immovable in their conviction that Rangers remain a “massive” club whose rightful place is at the head of Scottish football’s Premiership and competing creditably in the Champions League. There is, of course, nothing intrinsically flawed about aiming for the stars, but the problem with too many Rangers followers is that they want it to happen yesterday. Their ideal is the instant cure of a wealthy benefactor taking control and providing an unconditional minimum £50m of funding with which the team could be transformed from lower-league capabilities to national champions in the blink of an eye. And yet, curiously, there appears to be a substantial number of fans willing to rally to the banner of Dave King, the South Africa-based entrepreneur who, astonishingly, has publicly declared his unwillingness to invest in the club. So far, he has offered only words, primarily to blacken the names of the current directors. King has also shown himself to be as inconsistent as many who have become involved in the propaganda war at Ibrox, at first encouraging supporters not to renew their season tickets, then changing tack by saying that the chief executive, Graham Wallace, should be allowed to complete his 120-day review of the business, before returning this week with another fusillade in the direction of the board. King, convicted on more than 40 counts of tax evasion in South Africa, accused the opposition of a lack of integrity and honesty. But, among the array of head-turning schemes associated with disenchanted fans and the directors, the most preposterous is surely the demand by the former to be handed security over Ibrox Stadium and Murray Park as part of their renewing season tickets. This is like insisting that M&S give customers security over their flagship Oxford Street store in exchange for a pledge to buy more merchandise. The entire season-ticket phenomenon, in fact, has been warped into a grotesque caricature of its traditional place in the game and led to the utterly meaningless and misleading question: “What happened to the fans’ money?” This clearly ignores the fact that, when a ticket is bought, the money becomes the seller’s while the buyer gets the ticket. It’s not complicated. At the core of the Ibrox morass, however, there ought to be a warning that the fans should be careful what they wish for. Institutional investors collectively make up a large majority of shareholders, but each has actually spent a comparatively tiny amount on acquiring their equity. If they continue to be harassed, they could consider the venture not to be worth the bother, sell off the assets and close down the business. http://www.scotsman.com/sport/football/spfl-lower-divisions/glenn-gibbons-rangers-fans-playing-dangerous-game-1-3381635