Expectations for the Financial State of the Club Going Forward

[Gribz 743]

RANGERS have been told it will take at least a decade to challenge Celtic as the most valuable brand in Scottish football

 

At least! Considering it took them 10 years to stop us while they was in the top flight we already have a 3 year set back by climbing the leagues. Everything on and off the park will create a bigger gap.

[der Berliner 3,219]

With football clubs, one never really knows what will happen in a year or two years time. So one might be able to project a future taking the curent status quo at a basis, but whether this will come to pass is anyone's guess.

 

Sale and leaseback? If that is what is required to get the club through the dire financial years beyond the top tier, I assume the board will utilize that option. If they find someone willing to do this. Essentially an "excellent" chance for King to "seize" the club's assets and gain control later on, if he still wants to. You will find all sorts of negative stuff about this, losing the club's crown jewels and whatnot, which is true - up to a point. It depends on who buys the stadium (you'd have to have a buyer first, of course) and how the deal is structured. There are a few examples who show that teams need not to own their stadiums and still play top tier games and work reasonably well (e.g. my home town team Hertha BSC plays at the Olympiastadion since 1963 without owning it). That said, it will place the club / company in a more perilous position when it comes to future deals.

 

It is obviously a bit strange that by denying the club much needed money right now, the ST holder may very well prevent it from having another IPO in autumn - as suggested by Wallace. An IPO where fresh shares could be bought by King et al. For, IIRC, such an option would only be made availabe under the stock market rules if the club/company can show that it works on a solid business plan.

 

Unknowns. Is the naming rights deal completely off the table? Would e.g. selling Auchenhowie rake in enough money to keep the club's balances in a decent enough shape to make it through next season ... which apparently will be to a large financed by pay-at-the-gate customers? Might Ashley drop in again and take up a significant amount of the 43m shares still up for grabs for current investors and become a majority shareholder later on? When will the sponsorship deals start to kick in?

 

Anyone heard a whisper from "our man" in the RSA?

 

Lot's of questions out there and not many who have the answers for that.

Edited May 28, 2014 by der Berliner
spelling

[Frankie 8,134]

IMO this question should come before the one about on-field exploits.

 

There are many things to take into consideration and perhaps the Financial Bears could map out what they see as a probable/conditional route through the next 12 months.

 

Some of the obvious questions that scream out are:-

 

- Where is the money coming from to keep the lights-on?

 

- Will there be an insolvency event?

 

- What will be the final ST number?

 

- Will game by game maintain it's attraction?

 

- How long will it take to get a share issue up and running and will it be successful?

 

- Is there money to carry out plans mapped out in business review?

 

- How deep could austerity hit us?

 

- How exactly will austerity hit ut?

 

- How will severe austerity be paid for? (pay-offs)

 

- When do the assets go?

 

- Do you trust who is in control of the board (including the Easdale proxy block)?

 

etc.

 

I'll give this a go since I've been offline for another nice long weekend...

 

1. No-one knows but club says they have access to funding if required. Do we believe them?

 

2. No idea but I can't see how anyone would benefit from that given it would most likely result in at least once extra season in the Championship (or worse).

 

3. I'd fancy in the region of 20-25,000. That will cause us serious funding issues despite this summer's rise in ticket prices.

 

4. I doubt it but for some matches one-off attendances may be higher over the course of the season. Obviously other factors will affect these - factors no-one can predict.

 

5. Club suggest autumn is possible. I can't see how anyone would find it attractive other than consolidating existing holdings for sale.

 

6. No, if anything cuts have to be made, not investment.

 

7/8/9. Not sure what you mean but any probable cuts will directly impinge on our ability to secure promotion to Premiership.

 

10. Depends on how desperate the current beneficial owners are to hold onto their stake.

 

11. How can you trust a group (or groups) of anonymous people who hide from accountable debate?

[Bluedell 5,329]

Sale and leaseback? If that is what is required to get the club through the dire financial years beyond the top tier, I assume the board will utilize that option. If they find someone willing to do this. Essentially an "excellent" chance for King to "seize" the club's assets and gain control later on, if he still wants to. You will find all sorts of negative stuff about this, losing the club's crown jewels and whatnot, which is true - up to a point. It depends on who buys the stadium (you'd have to have a buyer first, of course) and how the deal is structured. There are a few examples who show that teams need not to own their stadiums and still play top tier games and work reasonably well (e.g. my home town team Hertha BSC plays at the Olympiastadion since 1963 without owning it). That said, it will place the club / company in a more perilous position when it comes to future deals.

 

I doubt King would be involved in any Sale and Leaseback. They would find someone else to do it, It probably wouldn't be that difficult, if the return was sufficiently attractive.

 

You're incorrect when you say it's negative to a point. It's negative full stop. There are no pluses. We can only sell it once and once we do it's gone. Forever!!!! The cash will be used up within a few years and we are left without owning a stadium and have horrendous rent to pay on Ibrox every year, tied into a lease for many years.

 

We should not be selling property to get us over a short term problem. That's Murrayesque in logic.

[Frankie 8,134]

I doubt King would be involved in any Sale and Leaseback. They would find someone else to do it, It probably wouldn't be that difficult, if the return was sufficiently attractive.

 

You're incorrect when you say it's negative to a point. It's negative full stop. There are no pluses. We can only sell it once and once we do it's gone. Forever!!!! The cash will be used up within a few years and we are left without owning a stadium and have horrendous rent to pay on Ibrox every year, tied into a lease for many years.

 

We should not be selling property to get us over a short term problem. That's Murrayesque in logic.

 

Its amazing how many people are attempting to defend such a move.

 

It is unacceptable - full stop.

[der Berliner 3,219]

I doubt King would be involved in any Sale and Leaseback. They would find someone else to do it, It probably wouldn't be that difficult, if the return was sufficiently attractive.

 

You're incorrect when you say it's negative to a point. It's negative full stop. There are no pluses. We can only sell it once and once we do it's gone. Forever!!!! The cash will be used up within a few years and we are left without owning a stadium and have horrendous rent to pay on Ibrox every year, tied into a lease for many years.

 

We should not be selling property to get us over a short term problem. That's Murrayesque in logic.

 

Why would King not take up this opportunity to get the club's crown jewells? How do you know how "horrendous" a rent would be?

 

Just to be clear here, I'm very much against it, just look at what the board might think these days and why.

[the gunslinger 3,366]

Lol at the notion king will ever get the opportunity.

 

I will never set foot in a stadium owned by a laxley etc.

 

Either be away games for me or go support accies with my mates.

[buster. 4,808]

Why would King not take up this opportunity to get the club's crown jewells? How do you know how "horrendous" a rent would be?

 

Just to be clear here, I'm very much against it, just look at what the board might think these days and why.

 

Der Berliner

Sale and leaseback? If that is what is required to get the club through the dire financial years beyond the top tier, I assume the board will utilize that option.

 

What I have seen over the last few years is a willingness by some (who could be catogorised as pro-board) to make efforts to justify or see as reasonable, actions or plans from said board going forward.

 

Up until this point, they have invaribly been wrong.

Curiously this doesn't stop them from coming along again with similar 'strong' views or opinions a little further down the line.

 

 

As far as the current situation is concerned, I can't see daylight either way.

However, perhaps that is only natural given what has led us to this point or how deep the hole is that we find ourselves in.

[Bluedell 5,329]

Why would King not take up this opportunity to get the club's crown jewells? How do you know how "horrendous" a rent would be?

 

The board would look to sell it to a financial company and not King. It's the way these things work.

 

I doubt King would be willing to buy it to prop up the current board/shareholders anyway. Would he really want to buy the stadium with no element of control over the club? Would he really want to be the one who is hitting us with a high rent? I just don't see what he would gain from it.

 

As for the rent being horrendous, it would need to be for the lessor to get the required rate of return over the required period, taking into account the risk involved.

[buster. 4,808]

The board would look to sell it to a financial company and not King. It's the way these things work.

 

I doubt King would be willing to buy it to prop up the current board/shareholders anyway. Would he really want to buy the stadium with no element of control over the club? Would he really want to be the one who is hitting us with a high rent? I just don't see what he would gain from it.

 

As for the rent being horrendous, it would need to be for the lessor to get the required rate of return over the required period, taking into account the risk involved.

 

From a business POV I can't see a financially handicapped Rangers (with large rent to pay) being viable in the longterm.

That's not to say a S&LB or transfer of asset and subsequent sale of TRFC won't happen, more that they'd need to have a plan B.