Our Improving Finances - Muir of the Same?

[wabashcannonball 0]

An absolute certainty Frankie, is that we as supporters will never have our fingers in the many pies at Ibrox. To fractured to divided and to many egos for it ever to happen.

[maineflyer 0]

An excellent appraisal of the situation MF...

 

I think it was easy to be critical of Muir knowing the task he had to do and some may also argue that criticism ensured the cuts he made were not as sweeping as he may have liked them to be.

 

The club did (and probably still does) need surgery to ensure its safe fiscal future but I'd like to see the support sort itself out to show we can be part of the team performing it.

 

Isn't that the truth laid out for all to see! It doesn't take much to draw criticism of supporter organisations from me at the best of times but thinking back over the Duffy/McColl/Ellis shambles and now the utter lack of initiatives coming forward is the clearest signal that we actually have no organisation to sort out. This would be the ideal time to be engaging, unifying and building credibility but instead will get only confirmation of the futility of hope when it comes to supporter representation at Rangers. No doubt when the next corporate dance hits the headlines, the supporter hierarchy will leap again from their slumber to present themselves as kingmakers, only to be laughed at all over again. I'll say this much for them, they must have fukking thick skin to take so much ridicule and rejection but still keep coming back for more.

[calscot 0]

Very fair point.

 

I also doubt the 'substantial' fall in debt talked about in the papers will be in the the forthcoming set of accounts given we'd have used most of last season's CL money to pay �£9million of outstanding transfer money.

 

This is where I get confused with accountancy. Surely the �£9M was part of our liabilities and therefore part of our debt. If we've paid that off, then I'd expect our net debt to be reduced accordingly...

 

I'm happy to be proven wrong if someone can explain it in layman's terms.

Edited August 26, 2010 by calscot

[Stimpy 0]

Good to see it created some debate, Lads.

 

The Muir perspective came from the necessity for someone to push the board to make wholesale changes that will see us service our debt. I actually believe that to a certain extent, all involved at Rangers pulled together in a siege like mentality when Muir came in. He wasn't popular from the board down (probably sill isn't). However, the club needed it.

 

Walter's success along with major cost cutting has married up well with each other even if it didn't seem like it at the time.

 

Long way to go but I do believe we are on the right track for the first time in a very long time.

 

Furthermore, the orcs have done well from a business perspective in recent years but their board don't seem as football minded as ours. I feel that might have a crippling effect on them. Their decision to hire monkeyheid then Lennon is proof of that, IMO.

 

Edit: Cheers for publishing, Frankie!

Edited August 26, 2010 by Stimpy

[rbr 1,247]

The other side of that worthy coin is that we are in no position to launch the sort of attacks on Muir that have regrettably but not unexpectedly characterised certain (self-serving) sectors of the Rangers support. Donald Muir may not be the saviour he'd like to be seen as but I believe he is part of the very necessary changes that had to take place at Rangers.

 

We do have unacceptable debt.... unacceptable to every Rangers supporter, let alone the banks whose money we borrowed. We do need to accept the requirement to repay our debts instead of just carrying and servicing them. We do need to establish a financial regime based on living within our means, instead of seeing spending as a God-given right, regardless of whether we have first earned those means. We do need to implement a sustainable business plan that is based upon financial prudence rather than periodically interrupted by it.

 

If Muir was part of that change, never mind responsible for it, then as far as I'm concerned he is a very welcome addition to the Rangers boardroom and stands in favourable contrast to the overblown reputations who preceded him but couldn't actually get the job done.

 

Hi guys , just managed to get on for probably the first and only time as I am in NY with my daughter settling her into Uni .

 

I have posted many times about and against Muir , I have heard first hand Walter briefing the press against him , I know for a fact he attempted to sell Davis to Birmingham , but what is also apparent even though I hate to admit it , is that we really are in the mess everyone has been saying we are in and that his actions coupled with great C/L finance for 2 years plus a few million in transfer money have really helped .

 

Let's just hope we never return to the disasterous way's of Murray , who knows if we get out of the c/l in third and get a good run in the europa league we could really make a dent in our dent , any way I'm of for a halfcalf decaf skinny latte on rye bread with a bagel on top and a donut .

 

God bless amer, I mean Rangers

[CraigRFC 0]

I'd rather there was just one supporters organisation that everyone could follow. The RST in my mind is a complete and utter shambles and it needs a clear-out badly! The RSA does a good job I feel but there is too much division between the two for either to ever be feasible.

[Guest Flying Hippo]

Hi guys , just managed to get on for probably the first and only time as I am in NY with my daughter settling her into Uni .

 

I have posted many times about and against Muir , I have heard first hand Walter briefing the press against him , I know for a fact he attempted to sell Davis to Birmingham , but what is also apparent even though I hate to admit it , is that we really are in the mess everyone has been saying we are in and that his actions coupled with great C/L finance for 2 years plus a few million in transfer money have really helped .

 

Let's just hope we never return to the disasterous way's of Murray , who knows if we get out of the c/l in third and get a good run in the europa league we could really make a dent in our dent , any way I'm of for a halfcalf decaf skinny latte on rye bread with a bagel on top and a donut .

 

God bless amer, I mean Rangers

 

It's difficult to believe that McLeish would turn down Davis on a plate when he's signed far less talented midfielders like Gardner and Bowyer

[Bluedell 5,329]

This is where I get confused with accountancy. Surely the �£9M was part of our liabilities and therefore part of our debt. If we've paid that off, then I'd expect our net debt to be reduced accordingly...

 

I'm happy to be proven wrong if someone can explain it in layman's terms.

 

Seeing as there's no accountants on, I'll have a go.

 

When the term "net debt" is referred to, it's largely just looking at the position with the bank and other loans.

 

It doesn't take account of day-to-day creditors that the club owe (but on the other hand doesn't also take acocunt of trade debtors). It's therefore not a true position of the total liabilities of the club.

 

The club therefore does have scope for manipulating the net debt in the accounts. It would be a lot lower if the club decided not to pay anyone for 3 months and then paid it all on 1st July.

 

Included in trade creditors last year were some large amounts for transfers and when the CL cash was used to pay them, it meant that the net debt was not affected by it....although the overall financial position of the club was improved.

 

It's just user friendly indication of the financial health or otherwise of the club, albeit an important one for us, as we were sailing very close to our limit around 16 months ago and it could be part of the reason why the bank have given us such a hard time. However it obviously doesn't give the complete picture.

[calscot 0]

Thanks for that BD, that makes good sense.

 

Now the next confusing thing is how did we get so much in debt if it didn't include a large chunk of the transfer fees? I just assumed it was our spending spree in the transfer market that shot up our debt, but it must have been more than that.

 

The club must have been really badly run to be spending so much over our income in addition to buy players, especially with some of the turnover we've been generating in recent years which is no longer distorted by our shops.

 

I take it that it all went on over-inflated wages and bonuses?

[bmck 117]

Thanks for that BD, that makes good sense.

 

Now the next confusing thing is how did we get so much in debt if it didn't include a large chunk of the transfer fees? I just assumed it was our spending spree in the transfer market that shot up our debt, but it must have been more than that.

 

The club must have been really badly run to be spending so much over our income in addition to buy players, especially with some of the turnover we've been generating in recent years which is no longer distorted by our shops.

 

I take it that it all went on over-inflated wages and bonuses?

 

I've asked this before. Why is it we're actually in such bad nick and celtic aren't? Where did the money go? After DM underwrite the gross DA debt, how have we managed to slip? It's not like we've had a massive influx in signings for years.