Generic Sevco / Rangers meltdown thread

[emerald green]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

It would be 25.

Even better.

[Ozyhibby]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Would put them in a play off position, to possibly go down

Not to mention, they would also have to make all their players redundant.

[CropleyWasGod]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Not to mention, they would also have to make all their players redundant.

They wouldn't.

Didn't have to last time, and neither did Hearts. The decision would be the administrator's.

[greenginger]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

They'll have 3 years accounts at the end of this season :)

Is it not 3 years of unqualified accounts, this lot are qualified I think.

[CropleyWasGod]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Is it not 3 years of unqualified accounts, this lot are qualified I think.

I don't know about them needing to be unqualified...I'll dust off my dog-eared copy of the rules.

EDIT...The latest SFA licence requirements say that the audit report should not contain an adverse opinion or disclaimer. Neither should it contain a qualified opinion in respect of Going Concern.

That last sentence might apply here. I haven't seen the Audit Report. What does it say?

[Andy74]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

This lot are heavily qualified :)

I don't know about them needing to be unqualified...I'll dust off my dog-eared copy of the rules.

EDIT...The latest SFA licence requirements say that the audit report should not contain an adverse opinion or disclaimer. Neither should it contain a qualified opinion in respect of Going Concern.

That last sentence might apply here. I haven't seen the Audit Report. What does it say?

The club's independent auditor, Deloitte, added: "The group requires additional funding to continue to meet its liabilities as they fall due.
"The group has made key assumptions in relation to its ability to secure further funding in addition to the timing and value of season ticket income, increases in matchday income and sponsorship, the timing and value of dividends and further cost reductions.
"These conditions around the need to secure further funding, along with the details provided in note 1 of the financial statements, indicate the existence of a material uncertainty which may cast significant doubt over the group's ability to continue as a going concern and therefore that the group may be unable to realise its assets and discharge its liabilities in the normal course of business."

[CropleyWasGod]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

The club's independent auditor, Deloitte, added: "The group requires additional funding to continue to meet its liabilities as they fall due.
"The group has made key assumptions in relation to its ability to secure further funding in addition to the timing and value of season ticket income, increases in matchday income and sponsorship, the timing and value of dividends and further cost reductions.
"These conditions around the need to secure further funding, along with the details provided in note 1 of the financial statements, indicate the existence of a material uncertainty which may cast significant doubt over the group's ability to continue as a going concern and therefore that the group may be unable to realise its assets and discharge its liabilities in the normal course of business."

Ta.

That's a Going Concern qualification then.

I know it's the least of their problems, but European football is a no-no for them next season.

More importantly, I think the SFA Licence is at risk as well, if I'm reading the Rules properly.

[Hermit Crab]

Thanks for the replies folks.

[ballengeich]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

I'm surprised the rangers even have a European ranking, never having played in Europe.

The ranking is for the old club. UEFA keep clubs on their lists for five years even when they're liquidated. If the new lot do get into Europe during that period it will be interesting to see whether UEFA sets up two rankings or merges them.

[ballengeich]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Ta.

More importantly, I think the SFA Licence is at risk as well, if I'm reading the Rules properly.

Mmmm - perhaps.

[Andy74]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Ta.

That's a Going Concern qualification then.

I know it's the least of their problems, but European football is a no-no for them next season.

More importantly, I think the SFA Licence is at risk as well, if I'm reading the Rules properly.

The key assumptions also include being promoted and the associated uplift in everything.

[CropleyWasGod]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Mmmm - perhaps.

Have a look ... they're a buggar to read... and see if you come to the same conclusion.

http://www.scottishfa.co.uk/resource...01%20&%202.pdf

[Bronson]

Not sure if this has already been mentioned but the BBC have just posted this http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/30234751

Pleasing.

[ballengeich]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Have a look ... they're a buggar to read... and see if you come to the same conclusion.

http://www.scottishfa.co.uk/resource...01%20&%202.pdf

There are a lot of SFA regulations that allow normal rules to be overridden whenever the heidbummers want.

Section 8.11 seems to allow the licensing commission discretion to set particular conditions to allow a licence to be issued when an adverse audit is submitted. I suspect that if there's an adequate further share issue that something would be cobbled together to allow the license. Without the share issue how do they keep going anyway?

[CropleyWasGod]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

There are a lot of SFA regulations that allow normal rules to be overridden whenever the heidbummers want.

Section 8.11 seems to allow the licensing commission discretion to set particular conditions to allow a licence to be issued when an adverse audit is submitted. I suspect that if there's an adequate further share issue that something would be cobbled together to allow the license. Without the share issue how do they keep going anyway?

On reflection, those are the rules for 2015.

By the time RFC apply for the licence, at the end of this season, the picture will be clearer. If the share issue is successful, then I would understand the SFA granting the license.

[Jack]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

They'll have 3 years accounts at the end of this season :)

Do the 3 years accounts not show something like a £30m, £16m and an £8m loss? (figures off the top of my head :-)

While the SFA will applaud such prudence from the new company I'd suspect EUFA will be less than impressed!

[Keith_M]

All of today's Papers are reporting they need 8 million in funding over the next 12 months.

Is this an extra 8 million, meaning over and above what they expect from Season Ticket sales, etc?

[Keith_M]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Do the 3 years accounts not show something like a £30m, £16m and an £8m loss? (figures off the top of my head :-)

While the SFA will applaud such prudence from the new company I'd suspect EUFA will be less than impressed!

They only have two years accounts so far, with losses of £14.4M and £8.3M (Source Daily Record)

[CropleyWasGod]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

All of today's Papers are reporting they need 8 million in funding over the next 12 months.

Is this an extra 8 million, meaning over and above what they expect from Season Ticket sales, etc?

Deloittes will have access to their records up to date, as well as forecasts.

I haven't seen the reports, or read Deloitte's report in detail. However, my guess is that the £8m will be in addition to the income already expected from ST sales and the likes. They have been operating at a huge deficit and it's likely that this will continue.

[jacomo]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Not sure if this has already been mentioned but the BBC have just posted this http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/30234751

Pleasing.

Operating loss of £8.3m on turnover of £25.2m? Rank incompetence. I hope they get hammered. My worry is that Mike Ashley won't let it happen.

[Andy74]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Deloittes will have access to their records up to date, as well as forecasts.

I haven't seen the reports, or read Deloitte's report in detail. However, my guess is that the £8m will be in addition to the income already expected from ST sales and the likes. They have been operating at a huge deficit and it's likely that this will continue.

That's right. They could always lower player costs but that doesn't appear to fit with their view of themselves.

Staggering that a club who has been enjoying significanty the secong biggest income in Scotland has also managed to burn through an extra £50m or so, whilst only having to compete in the lower leagues!

[Keith_M]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Deloittes will have access to their records up to date, as well as forecasts.

I haven't seen the reports, or read Deloitte's report in detail. However, my guess is that the £8m will be in addition to the income already expected from ST sales and the likes. They have been operating at a huge deficit and it's likely that this will continue.

Cheers, good news then.


Actually, given the Turnover of the Club, it's probably the only reasonable conclusion.

[green&left]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Operating loss of £8.3m on turnover of £25.2m? Rank incompetence. I hope they get hammered. My worry is that Mike Ashley won't let it happen.

Not when he's selling Rangers their strips MORE than the retail value we won't
(Grant Russel STV's twitter this morning)

[Keith_M]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Not when he's selling Rangers their strips MORE than the retail value we won't
(Grant Russel STV's twitter this morning)

I'm not sure I understand what you mean.

Got a link to the story?

[hibs0666]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

I'm not sure I understand what you mean.

Got a link to the story?

Mean that, if the retail price they could charge was, say, £45, Ashley had them (over a barrel) paying more than that to supply the stock.

Just the type of hero that the huns need to save them.

[Viva_Palmeiras]

Story doing the rounds here in Glasgow is that th DR has printed his flight arrival details...

Cant find anything online but do recall they have previous giving Hugh Dallas details out - car make model license plate were revealed and where he lived - after THAT OF match he officiated when he was coined... A neighbour then panned his windows - presumably knew where he lived anyway.

[Seveno]

I fail to see why Ashley is keeping them afloat when it clearly needs a massive injection of capital just to keep them afloat never mind competing in the SPFL if they get promoted. Despite what their deluded fans might think, they are not a global brand and there is a limit to how many shirts they can sell. It just does not make sense from the retail perspective.

As far as I know, Ashley does not have a criminal record or been suspected of anything criminal. He therefore fails the minimum requirement to be on the Rangers board.

[AndyM_1875]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

I fail to see why Ashley is keeping them afloat when it clearly needs a massive injection of capital just to keep them afloat never mind competing in the SPFL if they get promoted. Despite what their deluded fans might think, they are not a global brand and there is a limit to how many shirts they can sell. It just does not make sense from the retail perspective.

As far as I know, Ashley does not have a criminal record or been suspected of anything criminal. He therefore fails the minimum requirement to be on the Rangers board.

Ashley is keeping them afloat because it makes business sense and long term business sense to him. They're not a global brand (no Scottish side is and neither are Newcastle) but they are a big brand.
Despite all the sneering and froth that's been thrown at them Rangers still sell a shed load of replica jerseys, probably more than any other Scottish club and they put out three kits a season. Mike Ashley owns the retail rights for that. It was him who organized the Puma deal for them, three cheap template kits rushed out for quick payback.
That's a lot of £ he's already made out of them. According to the accounts Rangers Retail (Ashley) made £7.6m. The football club actually got less than a quarter of that back.

If Rangers are playing in the SPL and then get into the CL (something Newcastle, being honest, have no chance of) then that's even more revenue to him. Rangers going into Administration again would be disastrous for Ashley. He'd lose what is and will continue to be a lucrative business deal.
Keeping Rangers going will be chicken feed to him.

[Keith_M]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Mean that, if the retail price they could charge was, say, £45, Ashley had them (over a barrel) paying more than that to supply the stock.

Just the type of hero that the huns need to save them.

Wow! So they actually lose money for every top they sell?

[Keith_M]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

I fail to see why Ashley is keeping them afloat when it clearly needs a massive injection of capital just to keep them afloat never mind competing in the SPFL if they get promoted. Despite what their deluded fans might think, they are not a global brand and there is a limit to how many shirts they can sell. It just does not make sense from the retail perspective.

There was an article in the Papers a few years back that stated both Celtic and Rangers were selling in the region of 200,000 replica strips per year.

Even if there's been a large reduction since then, I'd imagine it's still a number the other Clubs could only dream off.