calscot 0 Posted December 17, 2012 Share Posted December 17, 2012 If the consortium keeps its promises and doesn’t allow the club to become over extended like it was before, then Rangers could be a very successful business. If Rangers are run in the correct fashion then the club should pay for itself. It has the infrastructure to be built upon, stadium, fan base and training facilities etc. I would very much like to see that and wouldn't care if the owner(s) was taking a cut from it. As long as they weren't bleeding us dry. The problem is that we could become a well run company with good books and a healthy profit converted to dividends but perpetually second best on the pitch. If we're paying 33% of turnover on wages and 17% on dividends and Celtic and our European opposition are paying 50% on wages and zero on dividends then even with a comparable turnover our wages will not pay for a competitive squad. There are plenty of big clubs in England that have become small ones due to financial prudence and the Premiership is full of clubs that have taken a chance or a sugar daddy to get there. Plenty of them are in financial brinkmanship but the survivors will be collecting something like £70m from TV next season... 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
craig 5,199 Posted December 17, 2012 Share Posted December 17, 2012 I'm not business minded....even with a set of accounts I wouldn't be able to determine if we're financially sound or not. What I do know is that at the start of the year we weren't doing particularly well on the financial front.....whereas no we appear to be pretty stable.Importantly, we have a team out on the park playing football, and everyone appear to be getting paid when they should. The club also appear to be wanting to progress as a business and make itself more self-sustainable. The setup/people/trusts/investors etc that are in place at the moment appears to be allowing that to happen..... The problem with this statement is that, last August we also looked reasonably financially sound when Craig Whyte was in his first transfer window - but how long did that last ? And how many sets of financial statments did we see him produce ? 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bossy 0 Posted December 17, 2012 Share Posted December 17, 2012 I never want to see a single guy running the club ever again. Guys like David Murray are always a deal or two away from disaster. I was warning of that over on FF when Murray started diving into commercial property with the bank's money. I would much rather have a diverse ownership ... including a good chunk of the support .... and a management which is answerable to investors. If we had that 20 years ago, Murray might not have been allowed to lose £140 million plus in just a few years. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
simplythebest 0 Posted December 17, 2012 Share Posted December 17, 2012 Some fans will never be happy with ownership unless it's a rich Rangers supporting tycoon investing millions as a gift. They're perfectly entitled to that view, I am rather likley to get beaten into submission by it eventually. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
forlanssister 3,060 Posted December 17, 2012 Share Posted December 17, 2012 I'm not fussed over any particular ownership structure I just don't want to be perpetually weakened by owners sucking cash out. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
simplythebest 0 Posted December 17, 2012 Share Posted December 17, 2012 The problem is that we could become a well run company with good books and a healthy profit converted to dividends but perpetually second best on the pitch. If we're paying 33% of turnover on wages and 17% on dividends and Celtic and our European opposition are paying 50% on wages and zero on dividends then even with a comparable turnover our wages will not pay for a competitive squad. There are plenty of big clubs in England that have become small ones due to financial prudence and the Premiership is full of clubs that have taken a chance or a sugar daddy to get there. Plenty of them are in financial brinkmanship but the survivors will be collecting something like £70m from TV next season... You really think we should take chances after all that's happened? 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
simplythebest 0 Posted December 17, 2012 Share Posted December 17, 2012 I'm not fussed over any particular ownership structure I just don't want to be perpetually weakened by owners sucking cash out. So basically you want us to spend spend spend on players again? 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
forlanssister 3,060 Posted December 17, 2012 Share Posted December 17, 2012 So basically you want us to spend spend spend on players again? How the f*&k can you reach that conclusion in regards to my post? 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
simplythebest 0 Posted December 17, 2012 Share Posted December 17, 2012 How the f*&k can you reach that conclusion in regards to my post? Well I assume weakened refers to the squad not being strong enough? 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
forlanssister 3,060 Posted December 17, 2012 Share Posted December 17, 2012 Well I assume weakened refers to the squad not being strong enough? Then you assumed wrong, every penny sucked out could be put to better use than lining someone's pocket. Youth development, a proper scouting network as opposed to jobs for the boys etc.etc. you think a better use of our money would be to pay for a new Aston Martin for Ahmed or a new barn on Green's farm in Devon? 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.