Last five years income / loss / balance?

We posted a profit of £12.4m in 2005, primarily due to the NTL write-off of £15m.

We had a profit of £7.6m in 2008, mainly due to the sale of Alan Hutton.

Biggest loss was £35m in 2002!
Brilliant mate
Thanks for posting this

Was our record turnover in 08?
I'm sure it was around £65 million
 
With all due respect, if we are only hopeful of breaking even after what will be a record breaking year of received income from player sales, commercial, Europa final run, then we’re in a hell of a lot of trouble because we won’t have that EL run income every season.

Only hoping to break even after all of the above goes completely against what Robertson stated at the AGM last year. He said we should be close to break even and that was without the EL final run income, Patterson fee, Itten fee, Bacuna fee, Wilson fee etc.
You’ve been told, multiple times now, about potential ‘one-off’ outgoings in the last year - including settling with the Fat C*nt (we know it happened but not the cost), potentially clearing the interest-bearing £5m+ loan (we don’t know) and any other loans, and setting aside funds for any potential fine for price-fixing (we don’t know). Plus, no doubt, substantial bonuses to players and staff for the run to Sevilla.

Of course, they may choose not to clear any loans. Personally I’d like to see them cleared but that’s, perhaps, just me. They may choose to not set aside funds for a potential price-fixing fine. Again, we don’t know.

Yes, we will have record income. You are correct. We will, though, probably have record outgoings as well.
 
Well remembered. Turnover was £64.5m
Cheers mate ,thanks for posting

Hopefully it's well beaten this year and many years to come ,especially as we guaranteed group stage football in whatever competition for the foreseeable future
 
You’ve been told, multiple times now, about potential ‘one-off’ outgoings in the last year - including settling with the Fat C*nt (we know it happened but not the cost), potentially clearing the interest-bearing £5m+ loan (we don’t know) and any other loans, and setting aside funds for any potential fine for price-fixing (we don’t know). Plus, no doubt, substantial bonuses to players and staff for the run to Sevilla.

Of course, they may choose not to clear any loans. Personally I’d like to see them cleared but that’s, perhaps, just me. They may choose to not set aside funds for a potential price-fixing fine. Again, we don’t know.

Yes, we will have record income. You are correct. We will, though, probably have record outgoings as well.
That’s speculation though with all due respect.

If it turns out the loans are cleared early and the SD case is dealt with, fair enough. But the fans should be told IMO in order to tamper transfer window expectations.

In the past when the loans have been given, the club have announced it fairly sharpish. So if they’ve been paid off, tell us so.

The SD settlement will be an interesting one though. I sincerely hope it’s not a significant sum above £2m-£3m otherwise I think the board will have serious questions to answer given the multiple millions wasted in legal fees and the multiple losses in court cases in recent years.

As for any price fixing fine. I’ve stated previously if it turns out someone high up sanctioned this then they should be sacked or resign if us the fans/club income will have to be directed to paying off a fine for quite frankly, any shoddy behaviour.
 
Ask him what money Killie have

Bowie took their only money making facility off them when he cleared their debt and took the hotel

He knows they have no money but like every other supporter he like trying to get a cheap kick at us, that’s the only bit of success and happiness other fans get is by trying to get a kick at us.
 
That’s speculation though with all due respect.

If it turns out the loans are cleared early and the SD case is dealt with, fair enough. But the fans should be told IMO in order to tamper transfer window expectations.

In the past when the loans have been given, the club have announced it fairly sharpish. So if they’ve been paid off, tell us so.

The SD settlement will be an interesting one though. I sincerely hope it’s not a significant sum above £2m-£3m otherwise I think the board will have serious questions to answer given the multiple millions wasted in legal fees and the multiple losses in court cases in recent years.

As for any price fixing fine. I’ve stated previously if it turns out someone high up sanctioned this then they should be sacked or resign if us the fans/club income will have to be directed to paying off a fine for quite frankly, any shoddy behaviour.
The first we knew if the interest-bearing loan being taken out was when it appeared in the Annual Report. A loan taken out to help pay off the previous interest-bearing loan to Dave King most of us knew little about either. I’m speculating, you are correct, that we will choose to clear that loan. Mainly because it’s what I would do. I would clear every and any loan. We have to move on from that in at least the short to medium term.

I‘m also speculating that the SD settlement will be at least £3m, based purely on the fact that had it been less we’d probably have addressed it earlier.

I’ve no real beef with you pleading for the Club to spend more cash - Lord knows you do it multiple times a day ;) - but at least acknowledge in your posts that the Accounts are not the black and white picture that you portray in your own, with respect, speculation. You’re happy to preach about record incomings but content to ignore completely the likely record outgoings. It’s not because you don’t understand, you clearly do, yet you choose to peddle your one-sided agenda. It baffles me.:)
 
A big part of the losses has been the amortisation of players - £40m in five years through the P&L.

It has mounted up as we have invested in our squad ant not sold anyone significant.

The last 18 months people say we haven't been active in the transfer market - in fact we have been paying transfer instalments for the players we signed over the last five years effectively.

Transfer payables v Transfer receivables - the payables have been far larger as we haven't had any significant receivables. But I suspect that due to Paterson money outstanding it will be positive for the first time in the last five years.
 
Folk forget the the utter mess and chaos surrounding our club, especially our finances. We are getting back to where we want to be, slowly and step by step, but we are getting there. In fact, I long for the days when all we were concerned with was the results on the pitch and not caring less about Boardroom matters.
 
He’s an expert in all the financial going ons even the stuff that hasn’t been released yet.
You should tell him that he could save us a fortune in audit and accounting fees were he to pass this balance sheet on to Rangers. There's no point in us repeating the good work he's already done :))
 
Losses
20/21 -£24.153m
19/20 -£17.462m
18/19 -£11.277m
17/18 -£14.341m
16/17 -£6.663m

Correct. Plus if you go to the Balance Sheet, you will see negative Retained Earnings of £85.6M

This represents the TOTAL CUMULATIVE losses that the club has incurred since 2012. The last two years have contributed almost 50% that amount but it's still a staggering amount and it's probably why the club probably has issues with getting preferable lending agreements with that on the Balance Sheet. Most banks/lenders want to at least have positive retained earnings before lending money.

We also have £78M in liabilities on the books and Cash at £3.2M with Trade Receivables at £20.3M

CURRENT LIABILITIES
Other loans (5.7M)
Trade and other payables (27.4M)
Lease liabilities (.57M)
Deferred income (25.0M) *Season Ticket Money already collected for next season
Provisions (2.75M)
(61.47M)

NON-CURRENT LIABILITIES
Other loans (6.4M)
Trade and other payables (2.2M)
Lease liabilities (1.17M)
Deferred income (0.1M)
Deferred tax liability (7.1M)
(17.1M)

Yes, this season has been great with high turnover/revenue but our balance sheet isn't great and I am sure that the Board is doing whatever they can to strengthen this. We seem very cash poor based on these number especially when the cash balance reflects receipt of the next season's season ticket money in advance.
 
You’ve been told, multiple times now, about potential ‘one-off’ outgoings in the last year - including settling with the Fat C*nt (we know it happened but not the cost), potentially clearing the interest-bearing £5m+ loan (we don’t know) and any other loans, and setting aside funds for any potential fine for price-fixing (we don’t know). Plus, no doubt, substantial bonuses to players and staff for the run to Sevilla.

Of course, they may choose not to clear any loans. Personally I’d like to see them cleared but that’s, perhaps, just me. They may choose to not set aside funds for a potential price-fixing fine. Again, we don’t know.

Yes, we will have record income. You are correct. We will, though, probably have record outgoings as well.
Clearing those loans with inflation so high doesnt make much sense.

Had a look at the accounts again and the going concern section states that we may use some of the rest of the season income above that already forecasted to reduce the value to cover needed to end of season.

So we might have used Gerrard comp and part of Patterson upfront monies to cover the funding gap.
 
Correct. Plus if you go to the Balance Sheet, you will see negative Retained Earnings of £85.6M

This represents the TOTAL CUMULATIVE losses that the club has incurred since 2012. The last two years have contributed almost 50% that amount but it's still a staggering amount and it's probably why the club probably has issues with getting preferable lending agreements with that on the Balance Sheet. Most banks/lenders want to at least have positive retained earnings before lending money.

We also have £78M in liabilities on the books and Cash at £3.2M with Trade Receivables at £20.3M

CURRENT LIABILITIES
Other loans (5.7M)
Trade and other payables (27.4M)
Lease liabilities (.57M)
Deferred income (25.0M) *Season Ticket Money already collected for next season
Provisions (2.75M)
(61.47M)

NON-CURRENT LIABILITIES
Other loans (6.4M)
Trade and other payables (2.2M)
Lease liabilities (1.17M)
Deferred income (0.1M)
Deferred tax liability (7.1M)
(17.1M)

Yes, this season has been great with high turnover/revenue but our balance sheet isn't great and I am sure that the Board is doing whatever they can to strengthen this. We seem very cash poor based on these number especially when the cash balance reflects receipt of the next season's season ticket money in advance.

We had 3 chances of attaining CL money, Malmo, winning the League last season or the EL Final. Even taking one of those chances would have helped our financial situation enormously. In saying that, we are not far away from where we want to be. Folk worrying should calm down. We have a great squad of players for this season and should be challenging on all fronts.
 
Correct. Plus if you go to the Balance Sheet, you will see negative Retained Earnings of £85.6M

This represents the TOTAL CUMULATIVE losses that the club has incurred since 2012. The last two years have contributed almost 50% that amount but it's still a staggering amount and it's probably why the club probably has issues with getting preferable lending agreements with that on the Balance Sheet. Most banks/lenders want to at least have positive retained earnings before lending money.

We also have £78M in liabilities on the books and Cash at £3.2M with Trade Receivables at £20.3M

CURRENT LIABILITIES
Other loans (5.7M)
Trade and other payables (27.4M)
Lease liabilities (.57M)
Deferred income (25.0M) *Season Ticket Money already collected for next season
Provisions (2.75M)
(61.47M)

NON-CURRENT LIABILITIES
Other loans (6.4M)
Trade and other payables (2.2M)
Lease liabilities (1.17M)
Deferred income (0.1M)
Deferred tax liability (7.1M)
(17.1M)

Yes, this season has been great with high turnover/revenue but our balance sheet isn't great and I am sure that the Board is doing whatever they can to strengthen this. We seem very cash poor based on these number especially when the cash balance reflects receipt of the next season's season ticket money in advance.
Did the current liabilities not also show the King loan that was about to be cleared and was being covered by the Bennet, Johnson & Wolfhardt loan.
 
The board really need to get this player trading model in place and get it operating as intended.

We’ve held onto players for too long and now the value we can get for them is affected. Case in point is the three key players we have going into the final year of their deals, absolutely no news on them extending their contract and no serious interest in them that’s been reported. We’re now probably in the position where we need to either accept less money than we want to for them, extend their contracts for more money than it’s sensible to give them, or let them walk out the door next summer. How has it come to this?

As a support, we probably need to accept that there will be regular turnover of players and that we won’t always like what happens in the transfer market when it comes to sales. I’d rather that than the current approach we seem to be taking.
 
With all due respect, if we are only hopeful of breaking even after what will be a record breaking year of received income from player sales, commercial, Europa final run, then we’re in a hell of a lot of trouble because we won’t have that EL run income every season.

Only hoping to break even after all of the above goes completely against what Robertson stated at the AGM last year. He said we should be close to break even and that was without the EL final run income, Patterson fee, Itten fee, Bacuna fee, Wilson fee etc.
Cant argue with that. I always look at the worst case scenario when looking at the prospects of any business and of course would hope for better. It is always easy to see income for Rangers but much more difficult to see expenses. Years of losses have been covered by Directors and loans and that can not continue.
This year more than ever we need CL cash and hopefully we will get that.
Cash has come in for players sold but we have yet to use that to purchase new players if it is felt that they are required. It could be considered more prudent to take loan players.
Our fans always want success and want cash spent on players to get that but finding a decent player for what we are prepared to pay is not easy and mistakes have been made in the past.
However I am positive for a good season ahead which would put our finances back on track providing we spend wisely.
 
David "I never took a penny out of Rangers " Murray?

Average related party transactions of £3m+ per annum told a different story

Read the post I was replying to.

"The way I look at it is if DP and co start jumping ship and the club put out a begging bowl it’s time to worry, as neither is happening then I’m happy."

Almost nobody was worrying about Murray when he didnt have the begging bowl out. Nobody was asking questions about how we were being run. People just accepted that if the guys in the board room looked like they knew what they were doing and weren't showing signs of worry then there was nothing to worry about.

Look how that turned out for us with Murray.
 
Did the current liabilities not also show the King loan that was about to be cleared and was being covered by the Bennet, Johnson & Wolfhardt loan.
Per the Notes

Current Liabilities
Investor Loans were £5.7M (Paid back by Installments)

Non Current Liabilities
Investor Loans was at £5.0M (Payable Oct 2021)
Loan from Premier Division Support Fund £3.2M (discounted to £1.926M per Balance Sheet)
 
We had 3 chances of attaining CL money, Malmo, winning the League last season or the EL Final. Even taking one of those chances would have helped our financial situation enormously. In saying that, we are not far away from where we want to be. Folk worrying should calm down. We have a great squad of players for this season and should be challenging on all fronts.

We are not far away but we are not one season away from being strong financially. Need 2 more years like this year to bet the Balance Sheet to look healthier and to get rid of the debt so that more money can be spent on transfers versus paying for the past.
 
Correct. We set targets for players to sell in order to pay the debts and operating expenses.

That is why there wasn't much else left for transfers at the end of the day.
The Gerrard and part of Patterson upfront fee would have covered the funding gap.

There would still have been the rest of the Patterson upfront fee, additional euro comp and commercial income to fund our upcoming transfer activity now supplemented with Itten and Wilson sale.

There should still be plenty left for transfers.

GS mentioned that part of our losses in the previous years is the amortisation of the players transfer values (its a kind of double impact with the amortisation and deferred transfer payment) and whilst that still happens Goldsons is either complete or we show him as a increase somewhere due to not having to pay transfer to replace.
 
GS mentioned that part of our losses in the previous years is the amortisation of the players transfer values (its a kind of double impact with the amortisation and deferred transfer payment) and whilst that still happens Goldsons is either complete or we show him as a increase somewhere due to not having to pay transfer to replace.
Amortization and Deprecation are the same beasts. They both involve recording something as an Asset on the Balance Sheet and allocating a portion each year to the Income Statement (and reducing the Asset) over the useful life of the asset.

It all comes out in the wash such that whatever you pay in transfer (and any associated costs) will be the value that hits the income statement at some point. You don't get hit twice or anything like that. You may have to allocate a larger piece at some point but at the end, you allocate the value that you spent when (1) the contract runs out (2) the player is sold ...which is offset on the Income Statement against any Transfer Fee Revenue earned.
 
To be fair, I doesn't look that way when you look at the balance sheet though.
We have two loans (Three directors and covid loan) to fund.

Im not sure what else we have to service.

Our advanced season ticket accounting has been done for a long while and wont change.

Why do you think the balance sheet tells us we wont have money to spend on transfers with those two loans to service as the only debt and by projections contained with the accounts on target for breakeven before the additional performance.
 
With a revenue of 45m last year we posted a loss of 24m .With some player sales and the Europa League money clearly our revenue should be higher this year but as has been said previously I reckon we will be lucky to break even.
We were a pen shoot away from improving our future financial position immensely,at least anyone auditing our books will see this potential.
We need to sell before we can buy or wait until we hopefully qualify for CL.
 
Amortization and Deprecation are the same beasts. They both involve recording something as an Asset on the Balance Sheet and allocating a portion each year to the Income Statement (and reducing the Asset) over the useful life of the asset.

It all comes out in the wash such that whatever you pay in transfer (and any associated costs) will be the value that hits the income statement at some point. You don't get hit twice or anything like that. You may have to allocate a larger piece at some point but at the end, you allocate the value that you spent when (1) the contract runs out (2) the player is sold ...which is offset on the Income Statement against any Transfer Fee Revenue earned.
Goldson being retained has a value now though which needs to be written off over the balance of his contract. Thats where I was coming from in that regard, if we have to write down his value over the period of the contract then we would need to credit the asset base with his retention somewhere.
 
Goldson being retained has a value now though which needs to be written off over the balance of his contract. Thats where I was coming from in that regard, if we have to write down his value over the period of the contract then we would need to credit the asset base with his retention somewhere.
Technically, Goldson's Amortized value should have been close to 0 when he signed his renewal since it was based on his contract and probably amortized monthly.
 
Hilarious.

To echo the actual question, the way that we declare losses every year seems to be an accumulated process but I always thought any loans were going towards equity and therefore weren't actually debts.

Anyone with the ability to explain it would be appreciated here too.
Not all of the loans are share conversion the board made a thing about Kings loan charging interest but forgot some other investors do the same.
The investors are funding the club generally through share conversion so it's not a debt as such but is cleared until shares are converted.
 
Technically, Goldson's Amortized value should have been close to 0 when he signed his renewal since it was based on his contract and probably amortized monthly.
But he now has a residual value again?

We would either need to show him as zero for rest of his contract or credit him to asset base to write down over period of his contract again?
 
We have two loans (Three directors and covid loan) to fund.

Im not sure what else we have to service.

Our advanced season ticket accounting has been done for a long while and wont change.

Why do you think the balance sheet tells us we wont have money to spend on transfers with those two loans to service as the only debt and by projections contained with the accounts on target for breakeven before the additional performance.
The advanced season ticket accounting is done correctly. It's called the "Matching Principle" and has to be done that way to be compliant as far as Revenue Recognition goes. I have no issues with that. It's just that I expect us to have a much higher case value but that could also be offset by the Trade Receivables as folks are on payment plans to pay for their season books. Regardless, when you add in the Cash and Trade Receivables together (which is why I included that amount), the total is still almost half of the liabilities on the books and that is not a very healthy look.

Correct on the three loans ...per the books, we had a Loan from the "Premier Division" which I assume is a loan we received from the SPFL/SFA as a way to offset the lack of cash flow caused by COVID. We had "Related Party" loans from Laird Investments (5.0M), Director's Loans (5.250) on our books at the end of the year. Both of those were meant to be paid back.

However we have current liabilities on our books for:
Trade Creditors £11.6M
Soc Security Taxes £7.7M
Other Creditors £ 0 .9M
Accruals of £1.65M (Accrued expenses...typically done at Month/Year Ends before an invoice is received).

Just the first three is almost £20M that was payable in less than a year. With the loans payable as well, that is over £30M payable in less than a year with only £23M in Cash and Trade Receivables. That's not enough. Plus they show long term "lease" payments on the books for CAPEX spending on Stadium WiFi, Stadium lighting rigs, turnstile installations and LED boards amongst other items.

From a cash flow position, we have too many liabilities and not enough Cash/Cash equivalents to pay them which would have required either more debt (loans) from owners or player sales to offset that gap. Plus that doesn't leave much left for contingencies or unplanned expenses as well as misc. player spend costs.
 
We have two loans (Three directors and covid loan) to fund.

Im not sure what else we have to service.

Our advanced season ticket accounting has been done for a long while and wont change.

Why do you think the balance sheet tells us we wont have money to spend on transfers with those two loans to service as the only debt and by projections contained with the accounts on target for breakeven before the additional performance.
Two loans in the Annual Report (the three investors loan was in order to pay off the King/Laird loan). However, there was an indication that further funding (circa £7m I think) needed to go in post the reporting period. I think it was confirmed at the AGM that the investors would provide that. Maybe that subsequently came mostly from the Gerrard money, which might have covered some of it, or a combination of the Gerrard money and extra income from EL/Patterson money. Either way, it needs to be factored in somewhere.
 
We had 3 chances of attaining CL money, Malmo, winning the League last season or the EL Final. Even taking one of those chances would have helped our financial situation enormously. In saying that, we are not far away from where we want to be. Folk worrying should calm down. We have a great squad of players for this season and should be challenging on all fronts.
You've not been here long ;)

Where's that Darsterdly gif when I need it.
 
Two loans in the Annual Report. However, there was an indication that further funding (circa £7m I think) needed to go in post the reporting period. I think it was confirmed at the AGM that the investors would provide that. Maybe that subsequently came mostly from the Gerrard money, which might have covered some of it, or a combination of the Gerrard money and extra income from EL/Patterson money. Either way, it needs to be fractured in somewhere.
Tells you in the going concern section it wont be required or reduced based on future performance.

Patterson fee, Gerrard comp and euro performance should see us not require that
 
Not all of the loans are share conversion the board made a thing about Kings loan charging interest but forgot some other investors do the same.
The investors are funding the club generally through share conversion so it's not a debt as such but is cleared until shares are converted.
To be fair, the Board converted £26M in Loans into Shares (Equity) in the 2021 financial year.

That was over and above the £17.6M they did for the 2020 financial year.
 
The advanced season ticket accounting is done correctly. It's called the "Matching Principle" and has to be done that way to be compliant as far as Revenue Recognition goes. I have no issues with that. It's just that I expect us to have a much higher case value but that could also be offset by the Trade Receivables as folks are on payment plans to pay for their season books. Regardless, when you add in the Cash and Trade Receivables together (which is why I included that amount), the total is still almost half of the liabilities on the books and that is not a very healthy look.

Correct on the three loans ...per the books, we had a Loan from the "Premier Division" which I assume is a loan we received from the SPFL/SFA as a way to offset the lack of cash flow caused by COVID. We had "Related Party" loans from Laird Investments (5.0M), Director's Loans (5.250) on our books at the end of the year. Both of those were meant to be paid back.

However we have current liabilities on our books for:
Trade Creditors £11.6M
Soc Security Taxes £7.7M
Other Creditors £ 0 .9M
Accruals of £1.65M (Accrued expenses...typically done at Month/Year Ends before an invoice is received).

Just the first three is almost £20M that was payable in less than a year. With the loans payable as well, that is over £30M payable in less than a year with only £23M in Cash and Trade Receivables. That's not enough. Plus they show long term "lease" payments on the books for CAPEX spending on Stadium WiFi, Stadium lighting rigs, turnstile installations and LED boards amongst other items.

From a cash flow position, we have too many liabilities and not enough Cash/Cash equivalents to pay them which would have required either more debt (loans) from owners or player sales to offset that gap. Plus that doesn't leave much left for contingencies or unplanned expenses as well as misc. player spend costs.
Outwith the transfer fees, compensation for Gerrard and euro performance there is circa another £13m of income from commercial performance to factor in.

Our forecast of only requiring £400k of funding in the future year factors in paying that £20m
 
I understand that mate. However, some on here are looking at it as £4m for Gerrard and £9m upfront for Patterson = £13m to spend.
If you did rudimentary calcs it would be

£13m in for Gerrard and Patterson
£7m out for funding gap
£xm in for Itten and Wilson sale
£xm in for additional european income to final
£400k out for 22/23 projected funding gap
 
There must be something somewhere that tells you as I was talking to my Kilmarnock supporting boss yesterday and he told me that the real price we got was £4million for Paterson as that’s what shows up on the balance sheet, the rest of the money will be add ons and selling on etc…

He’s a killie fan so he will know our finances better than anyone B-)
Or the £4m could be the first installment
 
But the player squad is classed as an asset though?
I think the asset is the right to the player’s registration and the value is the amortised value of the transfer fee/ any signing on fees paid.

Given the 2022 amortisation charge for Goldson won’t have went through the accounts yet and assuming we amortise annually, we’ll have written off 3/4 of his transfer fee so far. With his extension, we’ll probably add any signing on fees for the new contract to that amount and amortise the remaining amount (1/4 of his transfer fee, plus any signing on fees) over the 4 years of his new deal.
 
Last edited:
I understand that mate. However, some on here are looking at it as £4m for Gerrard and £9m upfront for Patterson = £13m to spend.

Which is totally unrealistic because there were also costs associated with bringing on a new staff and we had transfer fees in 2022 that ate into both of those totals.

Everyone wants to look at the turnover/revenue but nothing with increased expenses.
 
Outwith the transfer fees, compensation for Gerrard and euro performance there is circa another £13m of income from commercial performance to factor in.

Our forecast of only requiring £400k of funding in the future year factors in paying that £20m

There are also expenses as well.

I am not familiar with the forecast statement of £400k and what assumptions were made (And who made it and when).
 
Back
Top