All going to plan then. I wonder if there will be another share issue to pay for the 2013/14 operating loss.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Falcon
Printable View
All going to plan then. I wonder if there will be another share issue to pay for the 2013/14 operating loss.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Falcon
Their wage bill is about our turnover!
Not sure how a division 3 team spent 33 million!
And never looked like winning a cup. Staggering.Quote:
Originally Posted by Antwerphibs
criminals.
Here's hoping the cockroaches are blown away this time and never to be seen again.
No wonder they had to pull out of deals for Zaluskas and the other guys they had training there. Would have thought their wage bill will have gone up this season with the signing of Daly and not getting rid of anyone. How can they reduce a cost base in their first year of trading? http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotlan...-west-24344579
These figures are simply staggering. I accept the company has high overheads which it can't do much about but a huge chunk of that loss will be down to the ludicrous wages they are paying.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Falcon
No wonder the Board room at The Rangers is at war - if I were a shareholder I would be very concerned indeed. Judging by Craig Mather's comments though, everything is going to plan.
If you go back about 20,000 posts, Jon Pritchett was the guy behind Club 9 Sports. They were interested in buying Rangers, but only if they went down the newco route and got rid of all the highly paid staff and players.Quote:
Jon L. Pritchett@tobaccoroadguy27m
@white_italy Thanks. Ha, Ha. Only in Rangers World can you spend 90% of your revenue on staff and think you've got a healthy business.
Naturally, the Rangers fans preferred the spivs and chancers they've had since and got now.
I can't see any way that The Rangers will get into the top league with no debt and money in the bank.
They seem intent on having an F1 McLaren to win a Go Kart Race, no matter what it costs them.
Club 9 were probably one rung above 'spivs and chancers'.Quote:
Originally Posted by Part/Time Supporter
Sorted it for you :wink:. Think the go cart race is this season........Quote:
Originally Posted by keekaboo
More detail on TRFC finances here:
http://www.scotsman.com/news/scotlan...loss-1-3119523
Turnover less than £20m, but Chuckie Green took away £933k in salary, Swally £825k. Those figures are absolutely outrageous. I can understand both men having share options that might pay out handsomely if they turn the club around, but to take that much cash out of a business of that size is shocking.
Imagine if we were paying our guys these wages:-)
We would be bust!Quote:
Originally Posted by Lucius Apuleius
They need another stupid billionaire or Scotland's youngest football club will go the way of their equally poisonous predecessors,
Personally I think a 'Rangers' in any form can't be anything other than a bigoted racist cancer.
It's time they went to the grave for the final time.
With a current wage bill of £7.8m for the first team squad, at say a generous 30 players, would mean an average wage of £5,000 a week. To win League One !
The club earned just £778,000 from broadcasting rights.
How many SPFL clubs earned that ?
Quote:
Originally Posted by hibees 7062
More to the point, how much did all the other division 3 clubs get?
At £825 grand a year it's no surprise McCoist doesn't do walking away
Love the headlines on the article, they need to keep telling themselves, the club celebrated 140 years in existence, really 140 years? I hope they keep spending like they are, the rangers will soon be in administration.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Falcon
Not enough to cover McMoist's salary though.Quote:
Originally Posted by hibees 7062
In fairness, the accounting period covered 13 months so he is on more like £750K a year to lose games against Stirling, Annan and Peterhead.Quote:
Originally Posted by green is good
That will be mostly from their overseas fans subscribing to their website. The SPL bought rights from the SFL (for games involving Rangers) but Rangers were not entitled to those funds as they were only an associate member. They will have got some TV money from Sky for the couple of games they played in the Scottish Cup.Quote:
Originally Posted by hibees 7062
Even they seem to be confused about the difference between the Company and the Club.
- The Club was returned to operational and financial stability.
If it was the (previous) Company that went bust, owing tens of millions to all and sundry, how can The Club have returned to financial stability?
:hmmm:
For those following Charlotte Fakeovers on twitter it just posted "Suspension Lifted. Let's get to the bottom of who has most to hide. No punches pulled"
I noticed the account posted some things earlier that had been removed by lawyers - so lets hope some more info comes out.
Wonder who is behind the account - surely someone close to Craig Whyte?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/24382632
How many players do they actually have on their books?
http://www.soccerbase.com/teams/team.sd?team_id=2104&comp_id=14Quote:
Originally Posted by Billy Whizz
Take away those three players and they'll be down to the bare bones at 35 players.
Rangers might run out of money before they get back to the top flight, says Neil Patey:
http://www.scotsman.com/sport/footba...ship-1-3122904
The recent accounts contain a number of "one off" items so presumably the trading position is not as bad as it looked initially. But Mr Patey seems to suggest there is reason for them to worry.
Given the vicious arguing amongst the existing shareholders at The Rangers, how likely is it they could do another successful share issue? Who would want to invest in a company that is burning through cash so rapidly and where the Board, wannabe Board members and Executive Team seem to spend most of the working day issuing statements against each other?
I read that, with half an eye on what he said before about Rangers' situation.Quote:
Originally Posted by jacomoseven
It's a bit of a non-statement, to be honest, and probably taken out of context. However, if they do nothing, they WILL run out of money, and much sooner than that.
They have plenty of scope, though, for raising cash. IIRC, they have no bank lending, with assets worth squillions :rolleyes:, so there is scope there. Sale and lease-back has also been mentioned. Another share issue, although possible, is unlikely.
Its a fascinating account.Quote:
Originally Posted by johnbc70
However, he can reveal all he likes but unless journos and football administrators listen to him/conveniently stop ignoring him, then nothing will happen.
No doubt someone would agree a loan with them, but probably at quite a high price given their track record (none or awful, depending on how you see it). Also, sale-and-leaseback deals are pretty discredited aren't they, certainly in the UK. Any club that's done one seems to spend the next few years desperately trying to buy their own ground back.Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
Indeed.Quote:
Originally Posted by jacomoseven
Where they are in a good place, though, is that they own a number of separate properties. It might be in their interests to do a deal with the training ground.
On the other hand, I think I read that Edmiston House needs a lot of money spent on it, before they can sell or lease that.