Attitude to SDM

[craig 5,195]

dont know if this helps but Murray had Ibrox revalued at a ridiculous amount , a bit like getting your house which was worth �£100,000 , valued at �£150,000 , I'm not saying that the valuation of ibrox was the same as the example percentage wise but it certainly was overvalued

 

On what basis do you make it over-valued ?? Your perception of the value or something else ?

 

What made it a ridiculous revaluation ? If the cost of the stadium had been at historic cost from years gone by then the revaluation would look ridiculous but land prices, property prices and inflation would all add to the value of Ibrox being significantly higher than historical cost.

 

Reason I ask is because when the revaluation was made it would have to have been agreed to by the auditors and the revaluation would have been made by an independent firm of valuers.

 

The club would have felt it right to revalue at that point in time but they wouldn't have been responsible for the actual valuation, although they would have had a say in whether they agreed with the valuation or not, and if they didn't they could decide not to revalue.

[rbr 1,247]

On what basis do you make it over-valued ?? Your perception of the value or something else ?

 

What made it a ridiculous revaluation ? If the cost of the stadium had been at historic cost from years gone by then the revaluation would look ridiculous but land prices, property prices and inflation would all add to the value of Ibrox being significantly higher than historical cost.

 

Reason I ask is because when the revaluation was made it would have to have been agreed to by the auditors and the revaluation would have been made by an independent firm of valuers.

 

The club would have felt it right to revalue at that point in time but they wouldn't have been responsible for the actual valuation, although they would have had a say in whether they agreed with the valuation or not, and if they didn't they could decide not to revalue.

 

The reason I posted this is that it was brought up at an agm a few years ago , and many posters much more in the know than my self who are also shareholders have ridiculed the valuation , remember this is not put on for selling purposes it was put on to make the books look better nothing more , yet more smoke and mirrors i'm afraid

[Bluedell 5,329]

On what basis do you make it over-valued ?? Your perception of the value or something else ?

 

What made it a ridiculous revaluation ? If the cost of the stadium had been at historic cost from years gone by then the revaluation would look ridiculous but land prices, property prices and inflation would all add to the value of Ibrox being significantly higher than historical cost.

 

Reason I ask is because when the revaluation was made it would have to have been agreed to by the auditors and the revaluation would have been made by an independent firm of valuers.

 

The club would have felt it right to revalue at that point in time but they wouldn't have been responsible for the actual valuation, although they would have had a say in whether they agreed with the valuation or not, and if they didn't they could decide not to revalue.

Craig, I agree with RBR. The basis of the revaluation is ridiculous. It's on a replacement cost basis.

 

If I own a house and I can sell it for �£100K, but if it was knocked down and I had to rebuild it, it would cost �£200K, it's crazy that I say I have a house worth �£200K if all I can sell it for is �£100K.

 

Revaluation is fine, as you say, but the the club valued the stadium at the highest possible valuation to allow it to remain solvent from a book point of view. The valuation is meaningless when it comes to assessing the worth of the club, and would be discounted by banks and any potential buyers of the club.

 

I'm no property expert and couldn't say how much it's over-valued by, but I would guess it's a very substantial amount (�£30m?).

[Bluedell 5,329]

Reason I ask is because when the revaluation was made it would have to have been agreed to by the auditors and the revaluation would have been made by an independent firm of valuers.

 

The club would have felt it right to revalue at that point in time but they wouldn't have been responsible for the actual valuation, although they would have had a say in whether they agreed with the valuation or not, and if they didn't they could decide not to revalue.

Forgot to say that the basis is apparently allowed under new accounting rules, and therefore has to be agreed to by the auditors. It was caried out by independent valuers but I'm sure it was Murray who dictated the method of valuation, when there are other, more realistic methods available.

[Guest Arnold]

This seems to have been taken slightly off track.

 

For all Murray coughed up �£50 million, he had to or Rangers would have been sliding toward bankruptcy. He made the debt so he had to pay (some of) it off.

 

Regardless of that, we're still without a title for three years, still have no scouting network or youth academy and we still get vile things written about us in the press. He could fix all of that but he chooses not to.

[Bluedell 5,329]

This seems to have been taken slightly off track.

 

For all Murray coughed up �£50 million, he had to or Rangers would have been sliding toward bankruptcy. He made the debt so he had to pay (some of) it off.

 

Regardless of that, we're still without a title for three years, still have no scouting network or youth academy and we still get vile things written about us in the press. He could fix all of that but he chooses not to.

I guess we have a youth academy of sorts (although I heard a rumour that funding may be getting cut this season), but would agree with the rest.

[Guest Arnold]

I guess we have a youth academy of sorts (although I heard a rumour that funding may be getting cut this season), but would agree with the rest.

 

We don't have a youth academy. We have youth teams and a handful of youth coaches.

 

A youth academy will bring in kids under 10, help them through football coaching, education and everything else, spending years preparing them to make the step up to the first team. We sign youngsters, get a couple of coaches in and cross our fingers that one of them will be good. There's a huge difference between a youth system (which has produced two good players in a decade, McGregor and Hutton) and a youth academy. We don't have the latter.

[craig 5,195]

Craig, I agree with RBR. The basis of the revaluation is ridiculous. It's on a replacement cost basis.

 

If I own a house and I can sell it for �£100K, but if it was knocked down and I had to rebuild it, it would cost �£200K, it's crazy that I say I have a house worth �£200K if all I can sell it for is �£100K.

 

Revaluation is fine, as you say, but the the club valued the stadium at the highest possible valuation to allow it to remain solvent from a book point of view. The valuation is meaningless when it comes to assessing the worth of the club, and would be discounted by banks and any potential buyers of the club.

 

I'm no property expert and couldn't say how much it's over-valued by, but I would guess it's a very substantial amount (�£30m?).

 

We will agree to disagree on this one then BD because replacement cost is a viable valuation technique.

 

The club are absolutely entitled to use the accounting standards to their best advantage and replacement cost is one such method. In this instance if you want to look for a scapegoat it should be the standard setters.

 

Lets not forget that the revaluation has to go through the auditors and if it is in contravention to the accounting standards then there would be a qualified audit report which, to the best of my knowledge, hasnt happened.

 

I am not suggesting that I AGREE with the valuation and I wholeheartedly agree that a property is worth only as much as you can sell it for - but that is NOT the point here IMO.

 

From a technical perspective the stadium is NOT over-valued as it is valued on an accepted basis. From a practical sense it IS over-valued. The club had, and have, the right to value it as they see fit so long as it is within the confines of UK GAAP.

 

I dont agree that it would be discounted upon sale and it is to be expected but that doesnt mean it is over-valued from a book perspective.

[craig 5,195]

I guess we have a youth academy of sorts (although I heard a rumour that funding may be getting cut this season), but would agree with the rest.

 

It is exactly this type of funding we should be INCREASING !!!

[maineflyer 0]

So when you are wrong you try to combat it by trying to elevate your status by stating you "employ some acountants, they kep the books straight". Good for you maineflyer - if nothing else you have proven a very important rule in business which is.... you dont have to be smart to own your own business but you should emply smart people !!

 

Again, you are wrong. He has not kept Rangers afloat with inter-company loans. Inter-company loans are still debt and therefore still an obligation of the company. What Murray did was had a rights issue, giving every shareholder the right to buy one share for every share he/she owns - this is called Capital and it is no longer debt and the only right that the shareholder has to the organisation is whatever is left over at the end of the administration if it goes into bankruptcy plus any dividend payments and the value of his shares if he wishes to sell them (he would then forego the proceeds upon liquidation).

 

The only way he would have kept the debt within the organisation would be if Rangers were a subsidiary of his MIM companies, which it is not. Murray, as far as I am aware, holds the shares in Rangers in his own name (could be wrong). Even if the money came from MIM it seemed to me that the shares were bought in Murray's name which means any DEBT is Murray's and owed to MIM.

 

If we reduced our debt levels by 50 million I would be prepared to bet that if Murray wanted to spend money he could. Having reduced that debt to manageable levels I would bet that the bank would be prepared to extend further debt to the club albeit at lesser levels than before. You again are pasing your own opinion as fact when it is mere speculation, as is mine to be fair.

 

I just dont get what you are getting at in the latter part of your post - Murray's 50 million went to clear most of the debt so just why WOULD ay of it be available to buy ANYTHING ? If it cleared the debt then it isnt there for ANY purchases, what are you getting at ? But you are making it sound like Murray didnt put ANY money in for anything when it is obvious that he at the very least reduced the debt significantly.

 

"Murray's money was nowhere to be seen" - so how come the debt reduced by 50 mill ? Or was that a fallacy ? And just how much did we the fans invest ????

 

Rangers would still have had money to spend the next day as my example proved. You made a post about fans being ostriches yet here you are being one yourself. If we reduced the debt payment then we have more funds available, simple as that. The reduced cash outflow mean we have more cash available to spend, simple concept.

 

You are welcome for the lesson in accounts, not sure I can be bothered giving you another 101. Suffice to say it is a very shrewd move of yours to employ accountats as I wouldn't trust you with the books.

I'm glad you admit that your opinion is speculation, since much of it is wrong. The shares are held by neither David Murray or MIM. Rangers is ultimately owned by Murray International Holdings and the debt therefore does remain within his business organisation. The shares were not acquired in Murray's name - which is in fact the whole point of this debate.

 

You make great play about the Rangers debt being reduced, which I had already acknowledged, but cannot answer the question I posed about the consequential avalability of spondulas to buy players. If, as you say, the debt reduction put Rangers in a better position to spend money, why didn't we spend it? After all "Murray's �£50m" is a lot of dosh for it all to go AWOL. Of course it was a rights issue but it WAS still an intercompany bale-out. Murray himself put not one penny into the process. The debt existed, the debt still exists, since the whole shooting match exists within the MIH group it matter little exactly where that debt exists unless Murray agrees to sell Rangers without trying to recover that debt in the process.

 

Unfortunately, too many accountants are like car mechanics. You need someone to service your car but that doesn't necessarily make them good drivers. Which, considering the information at their fingertips, is why too few of them ever become successful businessmen. You try to see everything in terms of technical accounting because that's what you know. Sometimes that prevents you seeing what is actually going on. To counter your rather silly statement about not needing to be smart to own your own company, you're right but not too many stupid people run consistently successful businesses, which I do. If you ever want to test your own driving skills rather than your ability to change the oil, why not climb in behind he wheel now and again?