Jump to content

 

 

Recommended Posts

Better than I expected, much better. I was fearing the worst!

 

£3.5m loss in six months is still worrying although expected some income to decrease based on poorer attendances and fewer televised matches......or at least it seems fewer games in tv.

 

These accounts shout out that we need investment badly. An increase in STs would only cover the cracks, not move us forward. Throw in Wonga style loans which we were told at the time were the best on the market and it is poor business from the board.

 

Not much positive stuff to shout about other than its fixable with the right people and investment.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Nope, I'm asking the question what the board, or for that matter Easdale, could have done to increase the figures you requested. And yes, I'm not amongst those who are standard-bearers of the blame-mentality, be it the club, the finances, or the results on the park. I like to look at the "why's" first. (And usually they are hard to come by.) We - I assume - all agree that Scottish football is financially as down as it gets, with no improvement in sight. We are where we are and it was highly unlikely that these figures mentioned above would be good, or increase. Rather on the contrary, which eventually happened. Scottish football got restructered, got new broadcasting and sponsorship deals, all not up to scratch of this day and age. We get a drop of that as we are just a 3rd tier club. So what e.g. could Easdale have done to the figures then? It's not that people are queuing up in those areas of concern, are they?

 

And nothing of the above defends the board, btw.

The board are inherently responsible for commercial income etc. Surely you can accept that?

 

You say that it was highly unlikely that the income would increase. Why? Why would a year's further trading not give the board more opportunity to increase income? Why should it not at least stay the same as it was in the previous year?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Again ...

 

 

 

What has Easdale to do with that? I'm not defending him, just asking a question. We are in the 3rd tier of th Scottish game, who is generally f*cked. Did anyone expect that these figures would increase? We all knew what we were up to down there, not that we were living within our means in years gone by pre-admin either.

 

Sure we are in bother, sure we still want to know where the IPO and ST cash went to in more detail, sure we want to know how Wallace plans to stabilize the ship now. And now we also have - as you intimated - current figures to talk about this. Let's hear the club's plans about how to challenge it (I would reckon there will be outcries too, not least if staff numbers are reduced, which seem plausible) now.

 

Everything to do with it. For much of the relevant period he was in total control.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Better than I expected, much better. I was fearing the worst!

 

£3.5m loss in six months is still worrying although expected some income to decrease based on poorer attendances and fewer televised matches......or at least it seems fewer games in tv.

 

These accounts shout out that we need investment badly. An increase in STs would only cover the cracks, not move us forward. Throw in Wonga style loans which we were told at the time were the best on the market and it is poor business from the board.

 

Not much positive stuff to shout about other than its fixable with the right people and investment.

 

I would look at our cash drop more than the massaged loss figures. We've spent 8 million more than we've got in.

 

That's worse than even I thought and the notion we didn't need this loan to survive has been destroyed making a liar of Wallace.

 

But the really worrying thing is we've been saying this for over a year and things have got worse not better.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Now, seriously, what have people expected in these stats mentioned above? We are where we are and there is essentially next to nothing the club can do about it? Well, at least you can't hold it against the current board, as they had next to nothing to do about these figures.

 

BTW, I noted that nigh all of our opponents in the lower leagues feature adverts on the back of their shirts, methink French teams' jerseys are full of them too. That could be one route for financial income, as could be a naming rights deal for Ibrox for say 5 years.

 

You'd also hope that the next shirt sponsorship deal is better than the current one, who runs out this summer AFAIK.

What are you babbling on about now?

Link to post
Share on other sites

What are you babbling on about now?

 

More epic Teutonic trolling.

 

 

The Sports Direct joint venture appears to be a poor deal for Rangers, the factoring in of monies from Rangers Retail is a dubious thing to do given that the timing and amount of any dividend are entirely at the mercy of Sports Direct because in all financial matters Sports Direct's 49 shares are effectively doubled to 98 against Rangers 51. Whoever agreed this deal on behalf of Rangers was not looking after the interests of the club.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Graham Wallace was hired in November, a full month before the AGM in December, so while he walked into a shambles that wasn't of his making it's not particularly accurate to say that he shoulders absolutely no responsibility for these results. He had 10 days before December even began to take a quick look at the bank balance, monthly income and monthly expenditure figures.

 

The fact that at the AGM and then on numerous occasions since the turn of the year he's tried to imply that everything was hunky dory suggests that at best he's been evasive and somewhat economical with the truth.

Link to post
Share on other sites

More epic Teutonic trolling.

 

 

The Sports Direct joint venture appears to be a poor deal for Rangers, the factoring in of monies from Rangers Retail is a dubious thing to do given that the timing and amount of any dividend are entirely at the mercy of Sports Direct because in all financial matters Sports Direct's 49 shares are effectively doubled to 98 against Rangers 51. Whoever agreed this deal on behalf of Rangers was not looking after the interests of the club.

 

Can you please go and tell the Weiss Man that on RM please, he is sp*nking over the Sports Direct payment.

Link to post
Share on other sites

More epic Teutonic trolling.

 

 

The Sports Direct joint venture appears to be a poor deal for Rangers, the factoring in of monies from Rangers Retail is a dubious thing to do given that the timing and amount of any dividend are entirely at the mercy of Sports Direct because in all financial matters Sports Direct's 49 shares are effectively doubled to 98 against Rangers 51. Whoever agreed this deal on behalf of Rangers was not looking after the interests of the club.

 

Just so I'm clear on this - the accounts include money from Sports Direct, that we haven't actually received and which we have no control over when it will actually be paid to us?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.