Where are those anal accountants?

[Super_Ally 0]

Calling BD and Craig.

 

Septc's finances are NOT better than our's.

 

We have a better credit limit and a higher credit rating.

 

Rangers credit limit �£1.05m rating 98

septc credit limit �£0.7m rating 96

 

Not a lot in it, but their biscuit tin needs a rattle, just as much as our's does. These figures actually do state something, and septc, despite their amateur accountants' waffle, are not in reality any better off than we are. In fact another SPL win for us may well reverse the situation totally.

 

In reality we need prudent ongoing financial mangement or a serious benefactor or benefactors.

 

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?

[craig 5,199]

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?

 

Think I have said this before S_A but a credit rating is not necessarily an indicator of financial health. It is one factor but to use it on its own is foolhardy. It is mildly amusing that this particular poster is calling Celtic's accountants "amatreur accountants waffle" but then uses nothing short of amateurish analysis himself.

 

Unless you are obtaining corporate credit ratings from the likes of Standard & Poor's, AM Best, Moody's and in the UK I think they still have Dun & Bradstreet (right BD ?) then you are effectively looking at almost personal credit rating type companies such as Equifax, Experian etc.

 

And there is a world of difference between the two.

 

Corporate credit ratings WILL take into account all financial aspects of the company and will look at things such as ability to pay future liabilities.

 

Equifax, Experian etc will look at things retrospectively in that they will look at whether you have been paying your creditors on time, meeting loan payments, paying all your HMRC liabilities on time etc etc.

 

And that is the big difference. The former look at the whole picture to determine, in their opinion, whether the club is viable, feasible and can satisfy at least it's short term obligations.

 

The latter doesnt even bother to look at important documents such as financial statements because all they concern themselves with is DID you make payments on time (back-ward looking).

 

From the "credit limit" and the "rating" it suggests to me that this person is using the latter type credit rating and not the former. The reason being is that I have never come across a corporate rating agency that rates companies in terms of numbers. S&P, for instance, use terms like "triple A" (AAA) or "double A+" (AA+) etc etc.

 

In the example given it could very well be something so simple as Rangers paying all their invoices (electricity, rent, rates, telephone bills, payroll taxes etc etc) either on time or ahead of schedule whilst it may simply be that Celtic are taking the standard 30 days payment terms and utilising that (which is actually not a bad policy to have). It really doesnt look at the financial health of the company at all.

 

I would be interested to know what rating agency those stats come from in the example above because that would then indicate the type of rating being talked about - but I suspect it isnt a corporate rating agency and, if that is the case, then the example tells us very, very little about the financial wellbeing of either side of the OF.

 

The financial statements will likely provide a better indicator than the rating given below and, from some of the statements that BD has made regarding the financials of both clubs, it would seem that Celtic's financial health is certainly better than ours, or at least was this pre-season.

 

In fact, just look at some of the qualitative factors we have seen this pre-season - they paif almost 3 mill to get Mowbray and his backroom team, 4 mill for Fortune and have bought some others - they also havent lost any of their squad unless through necessity - whilst our summer has been that of a clinical cull.

 

Now, with the money they have spent this pre-season, plus their loss of CL money and our additional CL income thanks to them getting punted, the disparity between the two teams could very well be much, much closer. The cull that we have had has been good for us IMO as we have rid ourselves of a huge amount of wages and we now have a very lean squad which is not necessarily a bad thing and so long as we dont go all "boom and bust" again we shouldnt have to go through that same process. But there is no saying what will happen to them (it could come down to whether Desmond would pony up more cash if they got into difficulty).

 

Help ? Sorry if not.

[Bluedell 5,329]

Craig covers the credit rating well.

 

I don't know too much about the credit rating industry as my company doesn't have need of it, but it could also be something to do with Rangers being part of a bigger group, whereas Celtic are not.

 

As Craig says, the guy who posts it doesn't know what he is talking about. Celtic are in far better financial shape and will be in 12 months time as well. However if we win the league again and get into the CL, then you may see the gap becoming even smaller.

[Tannochsidebear 2,314]

The signs of Timmy's financial hardships are clear for those having a good look this summer.

 

They have got rid of 11 players and brought in 5. I would imagine their wage bill has been dramatically reduced due to getting rid of the dog-eater, VoH and Balde, with only really Fox and Fortune being big earners of those coming in.

 

Add that to the �£10M+ it has cost them for the manager, transfer fees and contract pay-offs (remember Balde's �£1M golden goodbye) it really is a season of high importance for Timmy to win the title and guarantee CL income next season.

 

This is our chance to really put Timmy in the mire if we can get the best out of our reduced squad, which I believe to be better in every department than theirs, and win back to back titles.

 

Couple that with the new qualifying set-up for the CL and the news that as long as the CL winners have already qualified for the group stage through their domestic league (highly likely) the SPL winners go straight in again, it is arguably a bigger title to win for off the park reasons than it is on the park.

 

Another guaranteed CL income in 2010-11 will get our finances back on track, and another season without it will see Timmy go into meltdown.

[Frankie 8,151]

Exactly TB.

 

Last season was huge and this season is just as big in terms of re-establishing us as the dominant force.

[Super_Ally 0]

Cheers guys.

 

I do vaguely remember you explaining this stuff before Craig, but had kind of forgotten it tbh.

 

Post was very helpful though.

 

Just couldn't believe anyone was arguing their finances were as bad as ours when all the evidence (as you point out) is to the contrary.

 

I was under the impression though that come next summer thanks to our cost cuttting and CL money versus their expenditure and lack of CL money there would be little between us. Assuming we were to win the league and gain CL football again at their expense we would be on a par or a little ahead financially. Are we actually further behind than I realise and it will take a couple more succesful seasons to redress the balance?

[Bluedell 5,329]

Are we actually further behind than I realise and it will take a couple more succesful seasons to redress the balance?

I'd say so. Just looking at debt alone, we're probably �£25m worse off.

[Super_Ally 0]

I'd say so. Just looking at debt alone, we're probably �£25m worse off.

 

 

I know people get pissed off at the "short-sighted" thinking of only looking to be ahead of Celtic.

 

However, with the fact that we only really compete with Celtic and our success and finances are intrinsically linked to theirs (only one of us can win the league, only one of us gets automatic CL qualification and the money it brings) you have to consider things in terms of us against them.

 

Here's to 2, 3 and 4iar.

[Bluedell 5,329]

 

I know people get pissed off at the "short-sighted" thinking of only looking to be ahead of Celtic.

 

However, with the fact that we only really compete with Celtic and our success and finances are intrinsically linked to theirs (only one of us can win the league, only one of us gets automatic CL qualification and the money it brings) you have to consider things in terms of us against them.

 

Here's to 2, 3 and 4iar.

 

Both clubs have similar facilities with their banks (�£35m) and are similar in a lot of ways so it is only natural to compare, and you are correct to say that the finances are linked.

 

They were a lot further away from their facility so they could go out and spend money whereas we couldn't.

[craig 5,199]

The good thing is that the money they spent thus far doesnt look like it has particularly strengthened them. So as long as they keep spending and not strengthening we should be doing OK.

 

Even given their purchases one would say only Fox seems to have improved their team.

 

Like TB I am completely convinced that we are a better team than they are throughout. They have very few players, if any, that I would prefer to any of ours.

 

Us winning the league is likely to see them spend again as Timmy won't allow the powers that be to finish 2nd yet again and not spend on the team. It becomes cyclical from there - no SPL=no CL=less money=disgruntled fans=likelsy spending=poorer finances.

 

A league title for us could very much see a drastic closing of the gap between the 2 clubs financially.