Generic Sevco / Rangers meltdown thread

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ozyhibby

Not exactly a superstar then?

---

I agree, but the players they bring in don't have to be superstars to win the Championship.

They just have to be better, fitter, and more motivated than washed up and garbage players like Moshni, "Elbows", "Zal", fatso Boyd, rodent Black etc etc.

That's the point I'm trying to make. Can the players they bring in really be worse than some of those that are not being offered a new contract? It would be great if that turns out to be the case, but is that being realistic?

I just hope Hibs squad is better and stronger than their revamped squad, whoever they end up signing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Deansy

Not in disagreement with most of your post but I'd argue that MONEY is what changed Rangers when Lawrence Marlborough arrived and MONEY is what kept them at that level until they were caught - King cannot match that level of finance so, unless dubious practises return, I don't think their standard will improve from the current one , if anything, I actually believe they've hit their true historical-level.

---

The bit in bold - fair comment, I can't argue with that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Smartie

Crocked Republic of Ireland internationalists eh?

That will have the fans flocking back.

---

:faf:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by emerald green

I agree, but the players they bring in don't have to be superstars to win the Championship.

They just have to be better, fitter, and more motivated than washed up and garbage players like Moshni, "Elbows", "Zal", fatso Boyd, rodent Black etc etc.

That's the point I'm trying to make. Can the players they bring in really be worse than some of those that are not being offered a new contract? It would be great if that turns out to be the case, but is that being realistic?

I just hope Hibs squad is better and stronger than their revamped squad, whoever they end up signing.

---

You can't be much fun on a night out :greengrin:

They're so bad that they can't be worse so they'll actually be better and better than Hibs.

The Rangers are a skint shambles. Relax a little :cool:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Onion

:agree: They've an uncanny knack of attracting dodgy characters with big egos and more money than sense.

Why would any serious, upstanding, credible businessman risk their reputation and hard earned money investing in such a bigoted, divisive, horrible club ? You'd have ask serious questions of anyone who would WANT to own that club.

---

EXACTLY !! In this day and age, Rangers ARE an embarassment, not just to football but to Scottish-society also and no decent, respectable businesses or business-people would want to be associated with such an archaic relic from the 17th-Century !. It's a cross the Hun gladly bear. Sure, our intrepid media never mention what the No'1 reason for their existence is, the thing that sustains them, but every single person in this country (and beyond) KNOW what is is - RELIGION !!

You only need to log onto 'Mong-media' of 'F/F' to read what they're all about - although admittedly, occasionally actual 'Football' does get discussed. But also in every single game they play, you can hear their moronic, tribal chants - unencumbered by the law or the people who are meant to enforce it but don't ! Who on earth in the modern-age is interested in battles from 3-400 years ago in ANOTHER country, ffs ?? Their entire mentality is 100% fixed on 'Us against the Kaffliks'. No, no 'Serious, big-money' business will be looking at a tie-in with them. Business is all about the 'way forward', always planning/looking ahead and an involvement in, as I've said' a 17th-Century 'Sect' doesn't fit that criteria. In fact, years from now, they'll probably look back on the standards, character and reputation of their current chairman, Dave King, and realise HE was 'The cream of the crop' !!


Oh, and P.S - there's SFA money to be made in our game, anyway !

To all those that talk about Rangers outspending us and romping away with the title ..

.. have a wee look at some of the reports here ..

The Rangers Accounts

Every single season that they are out of the Premiership they are losing in excess of £10m a season.

The only reason they haven't went straight back into administration is that each season they have had guys come in and buy up shares (Easdales etc.) and last season they survived on a bailout from Mike Ashley. The reason they aren't paying Ashley back is because they can't!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Deansy

EXACTLY !! In this day and age, Rangers ARE an embarassment, not just to football but to Scottish-society also and no decent, respectable businesses or business-people would want to be associated with such an archaic relic from the 17th-Century !. It's a cross the Hun gladly bear. Sure, our intrepid media never mention what the No'1 reason for their existence is, the thing that sustains them, but every single person in this country (and beyond) KNOW what is is - RELIGION !!

You only need to log onto 'Mong-media' of 'F/F' to read what they're all about - although admittedly, occasionally actual 'Football' does get discussed. But also in every single game they play, you can hear their moronic, tribal chants - unencumbered by the law or the people who are meant to enforce it but don't ! Who on earth in the modern-age is interested in battles from 3-400 years ago in ANOTHER country, ffs ?? Their entire mentality is 100% fixed on 'Us against the Kaffliks'. No, no 'Serious, big-money' business will be looking at a tie-in with them. Business is all about the 'way forward', always planning/looking ahead and an involvement in, as I've said' a 17th-Century 'Sect' doesn't fit that criteria. In fact, years from now, they'll probably look back on the standards, character and reputation of their current chairman, Dave King, and realise HE was 'The cream of the crop' !!


Oh, and P.S - there's SFA money to be made in our game, anyway !

---

It's bigotry rather than religion that sustains them; they no doubt regard it as based around religion and present it as such but there is a world of difference between the good things that religion can represent and the hijacking of religion for hate purposes by bigots. Framing it as a religious conviction risks giving it some small degree of legitimacy; it's nothing but unadulterated, hateful, bigotry.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by StevieC

To all those that talk about Rangers outspending us and romping away with the title ..

.. have a wee look at some of the reports here ..

The Rangers Accounts

Every single season that they are out of the Premiership they are losing in excess of £10m a season.

The only reason they haven't went straight back into administration is that each season they have had guys come in and buy up shares (Easdales etc.) and last season they survived on a bailout from Mike Ashley. The reason they aren't paying Ashley back is because they can't!

---

A wee glance at their accounts for the 6 months to December 2014 shows income from retail as £4.2 million. That is only fractionally less than their gate receipts.

I thought Ashley was stealing all the shirt money !

Still the next 6 months will make better reading ( for us anyway ) with Ashley having another 25% of the retail income.

I think we're kidding ourselves if we think they won't spend some cash, and be better than they were last season.
Kiernan might have failed a medical, but so did John Hartson, Demba Ba, etc, and all went on to do well. I reckon if he was signing for us, we'd be raving about him. BUT, I would rather have Liam Fontaine.
They WILL spend money, even if they don't have it, and they will bring in some loan players (McLeod maybe). We just have to make sure we start the season well while TheRangers are still adapting.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by greenginger

A wee glance at their accounts for the 6 months to December 2014 shows income from retail as £4.2 million. That is only fractionally less than their gate receipts.

I thought Ashley was stealing all the shirt money !

Still the next 6 months will make better reading ( for us anyway ) with Ashley having another 25% of the retail income.

---

I believe that Rangers show all the income from Rangers Retail in their accounts even though it's 75% owned by Mash.
And Income is not the same as profit.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CallumLaidlaw

I think we're kidding ourselves if we think they won't spend some cash, and be better than they were last season.
Kiernan might have failed a medical, but so did John Hartson, Demba Ba, etc, and all went on to do well. I reckon if he was signing for us, we'd be raving about him. BUT, I would rather have Liam Fontaine.
They WILL spend money, even if they don't have it, and they will bring in some loan players (McLeod maybe). We just have to make sure we start the season well while TheRangers are still adapting.

---

I'm not saying that Kiernan will not be a good signing, just that people should recognise that they are not shopping in the same market as before and they are a lot closer to where we are.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ozyhibby

I'm not saying that Kiernan will not be a good signing, just that people should recognise that they are not shopping in the same market as before and they are a lot closer to where we are.

---

Oh, I definitely agree. Only difference will be wages. They will still be able to pay a player 4 or 4 times what we can. Kiernan done a good job for an English championship team last season so "should" be able to skoosh this league. Certainly an upgrade on the CB's they have got rid of this summer you'd have thought. And Warburton knows him pretty well too by the looks of it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CallumLaidlaw

Oh, I definitely agree. Only difference will be wages. They will still be able to pay a player 4 or 4 times what we can. Kiernan done a good job for an English championship team last season so "should" be able to skoosh this league. Certainly an upgrade on the CB's they have got rid of this summer you'd have thought. And Warburton knows him pretty well too by the looks of it.

---

Their turnover isn't 4 times what ours is.It won't be much more than double.

It's about £26m per annum but retail is about £8m of that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod

Their turnover isn't 4 times what ours is.It won't be much more than double.

---

As previously mentioned turnover is irrelevant when their costs are £10m more per year.


Sent from a phone

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CallumLaidlaw

They will still be able to pay a player 4 times what we can.

---

I very much doubt it.

Have a read of the accounts and reports that I posted a link to. :wink:

http://www.scottishfa.co.uk/scottish...1&newsID=14949

Ashley's fine for duel ownership issues reduced to £ 1,000.00

Can't be too hard on the man , just in case he is needed to bail them out again.

I don't understand how they can still own a licence as its pretty clear they are not living within their means nor sustainable without huge cash injections which gives them an unsporting advantage over other teams! Surely there is policy in place to stop this occurring as they are still overspending and haemorrhaging finances dramatically.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ozyhibby

It's about £26m per annum but retail is about £8m of that.

---

£26m last year included a £5m loan from Ashley (which kick-started the 75% of retail contract).

This year will need to include the second £5m loan, and will also be missing a substantial amount of retail turnover/income.

Just look at the 6 month figures ..
Revenue of £13.1m
Operating expenses of £16.1m
Profit on disposal of player registrations of £0.2m

Bear in mind that the majority of revenue comes at the start with season tickets, it's unlikely that anything other than an even bigger loss for the 2nd half of the financial year.
This is why they were desperate for Ashley's millions, in order to avoid admin and to be able to finish the season.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hibs Class

It's bigotry rather than religion that sustains them; they no doubt regard it as based around religion and present it as such but there is a world of difference between the good things that religion can represent and the hijacking of religion for hate purposes by bigots. Framing it as a religious conviction risks giving it some small degree of legitimacy; it's nothing but unadulterated, hateful, bigotry.

---

Let''s just call it "tradition" as any Rangers minded individual would trot out. I long for a day when a reporter asks that question of an interviewee - "So what are those traditions you always refer to?" Ain't gonna happen though.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tamig

Let''s just call it "tradition" as any Rangers minded individual would trot out. I long for a day when a reporter asks that question of an interviewee - "So what are those traditions you always refer to?" Ain't gonna happen though.

---

:agree: The really don't know their history - in the words of the song.

Many years ago in Paisley I got into a discussion with a guy who had a tattoo of a camp looking foreigner wearing a large wig, he was riding a pretty crudely drawn horse and the tattoo had 1690 underneath.

It was the night of George Bests appearance for Hibs at the old Love Street and we were staying in Paisley so we had our Hibs gear on when the creature started to talk to us - it seemed friendly enough - it's opening gambit was did we know George Best wasn't "one of us" - after a bit of gentle ridicule and other pointless chat we asked it what happened in 1690 and I kid you not, the explanation was that "King Billy fought a battle in Holland that saved Scotland from the Catholics". There really wasn't any point in going much further.

If you are going to put so much effort into learning the words of the venomous songs, marching up and down all day a couple of times a year and apparently guarding the walls of a town hundreds of miles away overseas against a long dead enemy, surely it's worth a cursory glance at Wikipedia to find out what actually happened, where, and when, never mind why.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by StevieC

£26m last year included a £5m loan from Ashley (which kick-started the 75% of retail contract).

This year will need to include the second £5m loan, and will also be missing a substantial amount of retail turnover/income.

Just look at the 6 month figures ..
Revenue of £13.1m
Operating expenses of £16.1m
Profit on disposal of player registrations of £0.2m

Bear in mind that the majority of revenue comes at the start with season tickets, it's unlikely that anything other than an even bigger loss for the 2nd half of the financial year.
This is why they were desperate for Ashley's millions, in order to avoid admin and to be able to finish the season.

---

The loan doesn't count as turnover.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MrSmith

I don't understand how they can still own a licence as its pretty clear they are not living within their means nor sustainable without huge cash injections which gives them an unsporting advantage over other teams! Surely there is policy in place to stop this occurring as they are still overspending and haemorrhaging finances dramatically.

---

There is. It's called commercial reality :wink:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod

The loan doesn't count as turnover.

---

This is why your presence is essential on this website. :wink:

In the figures they stated a £6m increase in turnover, the majority of which was down to their "venture" with Sports Direct.
"increase in retail revenue from £1.6m to £7.6m"

I've obviously wrongly assumed that this was the first £5m that Ashley pumped in (unless it's been a "purchase of rights" rather than a loan??).

It's difficult to see how retail revenue could jump up by so much, considering its claimed that SD now takes 75% of retail profits?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod

There is. It's called commercial reality :wink:

---

Lol aye :agree: wonder how their fans will take to it?? :confused:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by StevieC

£26m last year included a £5m loan from Ashley (which kick-started the 75% of retail contract).

This year will need to include the second £5m loan, and will also be missing a substantial amount of retail turnover/income.

Just look at the 6 month figures ..
Revenue of £13.1m
Operating expenses of £16.1m
Profit on disposal of player registrations of £0.2m

Bear in mind that the majority of revenue comes at the start with season tickets, it's unlikely that anything other than an even bigger loss for the 2nd half of the financial year.
This is why they were desperate for Ashley's millions, in order to avoid admin and to be able to finish the season.

---

Those figures also included commonwealth games rugby and Scotland v Georgia match.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod

The loan doesn't count as turnover.

---

With Sevco who knows you would have to check their accounting policies !

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by greenginger

http://www.scottishfa.co.uk/scottish...1&newsID=14949

Ashley's fine for duel ownership issues reduced to £ 1,000.00

Can't be too hard on the man , just in case he is needed to bail them out again.

---

'The Appeal was rejected. However, having regard to all the circumstances, the Tribunal consider the appropriate sanction to be at the entry point for top-end breaches and impose a fine of £1000'

So despite Ashley being a worldly, mega-sucessful businessman, who owns an EPL team and would therefore know all the rules & regulations (or at least have people who would advise him of them) re football-club shares, his fine's reduced for being at the 'top-end breaches' as if he's some, naive, wee-boy ..................

The GFA - putting the 'S' into SYCOPHANTS !

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Deansy

'The Appeal was rejected. However, having regard to all the circumstances, the Tribunal consider the appropriate sanction to be at the entry point for top-end breaches and impose a fine of £1000'

So despite Ashley being a worldly, mega-sucessful businessman, who owns an EPL team and would therefore know all the rules & regulations (or at least have people who would advise him of them) re football-club shares, his fine's reduced for being at the 'top-end breaches' as if he's some, naive, wee-boy ..................

The GFA - putting the 'S' into SYCOPHANTS !

---

You would think that, as well as receiving a punishment, no matter how big or small, the offender would be expected to cease offending. It seems that doesn't apply in terms of breaching SFA rules. Paying the fine appears to be the equivalent of buying the right to carry on offending.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Deansy

'The Appeal was rejected. However, having regard to all the circumstances, the Tribunal consider the appropriate sanction to be at the entry point for top-end breaches and impose a fine of £1000'

So despite Ashley being a worldly, mega-sucessful businessman, who owns an EPL team and would therefore know all the rules & regulations (or at least have people who would advise him of them) re football-club shares, his fine's reduced for being at the 'top-end breaches' as if he's some, naive, wee-boy ..................

The GFA - putting the 'S' into SYCOPHANTS !

---

But, if its a diddy wee club like Livvy !

http://www.scotsman.com/sport/footba...ules-1-3735816