Rangers FC no longer for sale

[calscot 0]

I don't think that Sun article makes much sense. It presumes a model where football clubs need perpetual input of external money and perhaps profits on external business ventures to just survive. Whereas to me, the true future of football is the old model, where you raise money from gate receipts, catering, sponsorship, merchandising and media rights, then live within your income, while keeping debts very low.

 

Rangers' revenue problems are balanced domestically in the sense all SPL clubs have the same problem - we can live within our means and still easily be top of the pile. The two main issues that continue are lack of competitiveness and credibility in Europe, and combined with lower wages, a resultant lesser standard of player and football played - especially relative to what the fans digest on Sky Sports from our cash rich (and massively debt funded) neighbours in England.

 

However, you could say we have a paradoxical advantage where, if we can make some kind of debt control and spending management agreement with Celtic, whereby both Old Firm clubs are run prudently and sustainably, then our greatest two clubs can compete on a level playing field domestically without threatening their very existence.

 

With English clubs pursuing an ‘arms’ race with a path towards ‘mutually assured destruction’, if the bubble eventually bursts and cash-flow starts to dry up, our financially prudent game could be smug spectators while half the Premiership clubs collapse into bankruptcy under the weight of their massive debts.

 

Football ownership for the sake of piggybacking property development deals or other schemes to make large profits just seems wrong to me. I mentioned in another post about the less tangible but certainly real advantages of owning a famous football team beyond directly squeezing the club for whatever cash that can be extracted.

 

A well run football club with a league-wide agreement on running every club to break even precludes the necessity for an owner to continually pump money in, and he should be able to sell on without loss. He would therefore make an overall gain from his tenure as well as having a lot of fun.

 

We could actually do with such a UEFA-wide ruling to protect the future of football, but I suppose this would be hard to enforce and easy to circumvent.

 

I still think Rangers are an attractive proposition – if the current price is correct.

 

And I think that’s where the problem lies – the price is too low for Murray. My layman’s view of the situation is that although our current owner wants out, he has actually inadvertently (through his own bad management) poured a lot of his wealth into the club and is staring at a stark return which may not be offset with the amount of money he’s made by Rangers.

 

It seems to me that endangering his main companies with his short sighted, high-cost, short term borrowing, he has been in no position to guarantee Rangers debts and the bank started to turn the screw. With his precarious portfolio floundering with the repercussions of the recession he was forced into a position of selling off assets at rock bottom prices.

 

However, he seems to have steered his group away from the edge of oblivion and back into less choppy waters, combined with the Rangers own good financial results and the promise of Champions League money, means he is no longer so desperate to sell. The banks have also reviewed the situation and given him the green light to continue ownership on an improved but still conservative business plan.

 

If he trades Rangers towards a much reduced debt while remaining domestically competitive, when the recession lifts a bit more and mega-rich businessmen are a bit more flush and wondering what to do with their money, his return on selling would be significantly greater – from an alleged Ã?£3M to possibly even Ã?£25M or more.

 

It’s a sluggish buyer’s market at the moment, with few buyers around; is it not better to wait for the bull market (and maybe with King able to step into the ring)?

Edited June 17, 2010 by calscot

[Frankie 8,150]

That makes sense Cal but that could take 5-10 years to happen.

 

Can we afford that time of uncertainty? Does SDM have the heart and desire to put in another 10 years?

[maineflyer 0]

I don't know much about Chris Brady, but from the way he has been quoted, he does sound like an objective outsider, and seems to make some steady points. One thing he highlighted, which is disappointing to hear but sadly true, is the lack of international recognition. This is somewhere Murray has failed miserably, particularly with the short-sighted JJB deal. We are a non-entity internationally, despite having such a huge fan base. It's not the people who are already fans, it's the potential fans and the publicity/higher profile we are lacking. e.g. walking into a sports store in America and what football tops (if any) do they have? Man U, Arsenal, Barca, Real, Inter... and sadly the green and grey.

 

That's an outstanding point. Rangers have been allowed to wither and diminish to such an extent that the club we imagine really doesn't exist any more. Talk to people overseas about Scottish football and more often than not they mention celtic, whose profile has risen as ours has fallen. I also suggest thge rot has also set in at home where the Rangers support is being steadily eroded. Another twenty years of this and there may not be enough left to argue over.

[calscot 0]

That makes sense Cal but that could take 5-10 years to happen.

 

Can we afford that time of uncertainty? Does SDM have the heart and desire to put in another 10 years?

 

Thanks, Frankie. I'm not endorsing the situation, just trying to make sense of SDM's point of view. I think the whole thing has been a shambles and the problem is there doesn't seem to be an incredibly rich, Rangers supporting, benevolent benefactor with the gumption to take us on.

 

The sticking point seems to be that we have a single owner structure at the club which makes it a very difficult baton to pass on as there are just not enough people rich enough (ie quarter billionaires and above), who would be interested enough in owning a club and who have Rangers at heart. We'd probably be better off with something like 35 multimillionaires putting in a million each.

 

Then if one of them wants to divest his interest, there are far more candidates to take it up and it doesn't affect the stability of the club.

 

However, although running the club by committee might prevent one person having too much control, there can be plenty of squabbling and not much direction or action. But it's not going to happen.

 

I still think the best scenario would be 51% fan ownership but while the finances are potentially feasible over a period of time, the logistics are almost impossible never mind the apathy and infighting.

 

We could really do with a viable and credible (Gers Save-like) mechanism where we can realistically get something like 50,000 fans putting in �£10 a month towards buying �£6M of shares every year. We could own over half the club in 3 years at the current price - of course I assume the money would go to DM rather than the debt. Although perhaps the money could go in a trust fund with the fans offering SDM �£6M for control of the club with a �£12M bond left over for the bank to underpin the debt if that's feasible.

 

However, the coup at the RST and the resultant low take up of the Gers Save makes this look like pie in the sky.

 

At the moment we're frighteningly stuck with the only real show in town - SDM.

[wabashcannonball 0]

Was it wrong that my first reaction to this news was to think of this:

 

http://www.gersnetonline.co.uk/vb/showthread.php?p=199901#post199901

 

 

 

Very wrong. :devil:

[Bluedell 5,329]

Very wrong. :devil:

 

I'm sure it wasn't.

[Guest Northampton_loyalist]

for what it is worth, there are rumours (i know i know ) that ellis is simply waiting for the tax issue to be sorted, hence the fact we remain listed on the SE as under a bid situation to this day.

[rbr 1,247]

It would be niave at best to believe that the HMRC "interest" hasn't had an effect on any ownership issue , also Murray and King's relationship is more than a little stretched due to King's so called exclusive's . We all know Sir Minty like's to stay in charge and doesn't like bad publicity

[wabashcannonball 0]

I am as puzzled as anyone as to what is really going on at the moment, however I expect some definitive information on the thorny question of ownership, with regard to Murray Park and Ibrox itself.

It has been said to me previously that in reality Rangers FC has been reduced to no more than a trading arm of Minty's empire, a shell with all former assets being held elsewhere. Murray has however said that we are a stand alone company with no cross ties of any financial nature, I believe that is what he said although I am not 100% certain.

If that is indeed what he said, I wonder if it meant no cross ties period, or just nothing of a financial nature. As soon as I have the confirmed standing of the Auchenhowie and Ibrox, and also the land that both stand on, you shall have it Tout de suite. The answer to those questions may answer others. Apparently there may be a deed a covenant for MP, that alone raises its own questions.

[Bluedell 5,329]

I am as puzzled as anyone as to what is really going on at the moment, however I expect some definitive information on the thorny question of ownership, with regard to Murray Park and Ibrox itself.

It has been said to me previously that in reality Rangers FC has been reduced to no more than a trading arm of Minty's empire, a shell with all former assets being held elsewhere. Murray has however said that we are a stand alone company with no cross ties of any financial nature, I believe that is what he said although I am not 100% certain.

If that is indeed what he said, I wonder if it meant no cross ties period, or just nothing of a financial nature. As soon as I have the confirmed standing of the Auchenhowie and Ibrox, and also the land that both stand on, you shall have it Tout de suite. The answer to those questions may answer others. Apparently there may be a deed a covenant for MP, that alone raises its own questions.

 

Ibrox and Murray Park are owned by the club. It's been know as a fact for a long time. There are no deeds of covenant or anything else with other parts of the Murray group.