Last five years income / loss / balance?

RangersEasyOK!

Well-Known Member
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).
Makes it in the going concern section of the report.

Just double checked, made on page 17 and repeated again on page 33 of the accounts.
 
Last edited:

Theciscokid

Well-Known Member
Pretty much given the losses we've seen. Some parts will be more normalised going forward when the endless slew of courtcases are done.

It's not really surprising to me to see figures around that level though.

The board have been fairly clear for a while that in a 5 year period, we need CL or EL group stage football 3 out of 5 years and a couple of player sales in the other two years as a base line.

We're hugely fortunate that our sensational Euro levels since Gerrard game in accelerated our recovery a bit and let us retain pretty much all our players instead of having to continue to trade up before getting to an SPL winning level.

We're competing with a team who've had every advantage handed to them for a decade. We've done very well to get in line with them.

What we need is to hit the CL cash to help fund the next level of trading and put is in that easiser position of leading from the front with a bit of a buffer.

They've had that luck of knowing the CL money was landing in their lap or they've been able to sell an asset to cover it and, and this is the crucial part, still win the league next year regardless to repeat the cycle.

It's a real shame we couldn't get over the line in the league last season. It'd have flipped the situation on its head completely.
Spot on with your final paragraph L1 because the Scum would probably of got humped if they had to go through the qualifying route.
 

BigBill32

Well-Known Member
Can’t break it down the way you want but the obvious start point would be the Club’s Annual Reports. All of which can be found half way down this page on the official website. I’m sure you can figure it out from there.:)

On the ball as usual and (along with Rangersal) providing a quality Gers public information service ! :)
 

BlueNoseBlueblood

Well-Known Member
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.
Thanks for input mate, but I think depreciation is a nicer beast than deprecation ;)
 

RangersEasyOK!

Well-Known Member
Separate from the football club accounts noticed we have just registered a loan against New Edminston House Limited by John Bennet (potentially others) to fund the completion of Edminston House.
 
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.
I agree with your sentiment that as fans all we want to concern ourselves with is the results on the pitch. However I think the last 10 years has focused the fans into what is happening with clubs finances, as this thread shows.
 

High Society

Well-Known Member
Is there a breakdown of our finances that's been laid out in reasonably simple terms showing our last five years accounts?

Been having a discussion elsewhere about why we can't (or aren't rushing to) buy a player before we sell someone. Not selling Alfie (but buying Roofe, Hagi and Itten) helped us win 55 but then we didn't cover that spend with a player sale.

Patterson leaving (and the Gerrard money) probably covers that matter after the fact but then eats into the money that people perceive we should be spending this summer when, in reality, it's already been allocated.

I'd like to see a turnover / spend / loss laid out with basic numbers to show the direction we're heading in but need that extra player sale to really start turning over the squad.

Maybe one of the lurking Accountants could help out...
A lurker like you ?
 

Hoosier Ranger

Well-Known Member
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

I just had a few minutes to read the Going Concern...looks like the forecasted shortfall was 7.5M + 400K as of the time of the "preparation" of the Financial Statements by the auditors.
 

Hoosier Ranger

Well-Known Member
That loss is mainly due to the covid impact on our income.

It's probably not safe to make that assumption for 20/21. Our loss in the non Covid year (19/20)was 17M so WITH COVID, it was 24M. That means that we are running at an operation loss each year without Champions League/Europa League Group money as well as player sales. IF we had been near break even for 19/20, I would tend to agree with your statement but we ended that year in a deep hole.

20/21 -£24.153m
19/20 -£17.462m
 

RangersEasyOK!

Well-Known Member
I just had a few minutes to read the Going Concern...looks like the forecasted shortfall was 7.5M + 400K as of the time of the "preparation" of the Financial Statements by the auditors.
The £7.5m was the funding gap we talked about earlier and Robertson confirmed was covered.

Its covered by the income bits I did in the crude calcs.
 

Blu_ultra

Well-Known Member
Am I reading this right - we need to make 70-80m a season to break even?
Yes. Approximately 73 million and that was from last year. I reckon we could be as high as 80 million this year. That’s why there won’t be much investment without player sales unfortunately.

Edit - as others said, there have been exceptional items (legal fees etc). Having a decent strip deal will help as well. However, there’s pitch maintenance, bonuses, travel, heat and light etc that will be much higher. I’d be shocked if we’re much less than 80 million in total costs.
 
Last edited:

mdingwall

Administrator
Yes. Approximately 73 million and that was from last year. I reckon we could be as high as 80 million this year. That’s why there won’t be much investment without player sales unfortunately.

Edit - as others said, there have been exceptional items (legal fees etc). Having a decent strip deal will help as well. However, there’s pitch maintenance, bonuses, travel, heat and light etc that will be much higher. I’d be shocked if we’re much less than 80 million in total costs.
We don't have baseline costs of anything like £73m.

Again - much of our cost is players wages and bonuses - these are traditionally high - so the better you do and the more income you generate the more the players benefit from bonuses.
 

Blu_ultra

Well-Known Member
We don't have baseline costs of anything like £73m.

Again - much of our cost is players wages and bonuses - these are traditionally high - so the better you do and the more income you generate the more the players benefit from bonuses.
Our ‘baseline’ costs (or fixed costs) aren’t anywhere near 73 million, but our TOTAL costs (fixed + variable costs) are. Due to our run to Seville, these will be higher (Imo) than the total expenditure from the last 2 accounts (74.6m in 2021 and 76.9 in 2020). One off costs will be reduced in certain areas (legal fees etc), but we will also have increased energy costs, match day costs, bonuses for players and staff, etc. I’m pretty confident we’ll make a modest profit, but we need to manage expectations as a fan base. The one area we struggle in is player sales.
 

ecossebear

Well-Known Member
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!
How the hell did we make a loss of £35m in 2002!?! If I recall correctly this was the season or more after Murray Park and our big signings. Can only really think of Arveladze and Ball being signed for any value that year?
 

frazz

Well-Known Member
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.
I'm not dissing them and appreciate it but it was snide content and dig to make in accounts.

We also have to remember that the board are generally buying the shares at 20 p where as the open share issue was 25p those investors will be looking to make money that way and I don't fault them for that

They put us back to a sustainable future we just now need the player trading model to kick in
 

Bluedell

Well-Known Member
How the hell did we make a loss of £35m in 2002!?! If I recall correctly this was the season or more after Murray Park and our big signings. Can only really think of Arveladze and Ball being signed for any value that year?
It was the impact of the previous year signings and their high salaries, although we did sign Arteta for £6m in March 2002.

Staff costs were 83% of turnover and player amortisation in the year was £17.7m.
 

MarkD87

Well-Known Member
This has been a very interesting thread. I've been impressed with a lot of the input on here. Thanks for the education.
I intended to look through the accounts myself and try and make some sense from them, with regards to understanding the recorded loss vs club value.

Firstly, I want to state I'm not a qualified accountant (so I'm happy to be corrected with any inaccuracies I state, or mistaken definitions).

Note: I only looked into the last five years.

Ok... What did I notice that was worthy of mention...

The current outstanding debt (to be repaid, not converted to shares) noted on the latest annual accounts totalled £13.9M.
The account balance at the time (cash in the bank) showed as £3.3M.
This concluding a net available cash position of (-£10.6M).

Over the last five years the club has published accounts showing a £74M loss.
This suggests that our investors have picked up ~£64M of those costs and converted to shares, in the five year period.

Interestingly of note, I decided to calculate the squad value for each season, totalling estimated values (only for players owned by the club, so excluding loans).
I used Transfermarkt as my source for this. Yes, I know they are far from perfect, however they had the data required and they are an unbiased source.
Transfermarkt valued our squad value at £86.4M for 20/21 season (same period of last published accounts). In season 16/17 (the same time period as the earliest accounts I reviewed) they valued the squad at £12.1M.
This difference is a squad value that has increased by ~£74M. Interestingly this figure is the same as the loss for that five year period. This suggests the costs have been balanced off by the increase in squad value, meaning the shareholders have a good representation of money invested reflecting the current club value (therefore share value), due to the increase in asset values.

I appreciate this is a fairly simplistic view, and doesn't consider fluctuation in other assets (i.e. Ibrox, Training Centre, Edminston House, etc.). Then there are many other factors that affect value that I've excluded.

Furthermore, by reviewing the accounts it highlighted that the club hasn't been growing in value in a cash sense, but has been in an asset sense. Any cash shortfalls have often been covered by investors and loans. This probably explains why there aren't available funds to go spending big in this transfer window. This cash will only become available from any profit returned this year. However, and purely speculative, I'd be surprised if this generates much cash to spend after covering the debt on the books. Maybe £5M-£10M (a bit of a guess, without seeing actual accounts). Otherwise we will need to generate more cash to spend with more loans, investment, or player sales.

To summarise, I was comforted with the club position based on the increase I've assumed in the club value, and that justifying the losses over the past five years. However, that could suddenly change with our three most valuable assets (according to Transfermarkt) all potentially leaving the club for nothing next year. So contract extensions, or sales of these players (close to their valuations), is important to secure the club value/balance sheet.
 

Spart7

Well-Known Member
Am I reading this right - we need to make 70-80m a season to break even?

Yes, at first glance, but, in reality, no is the answer to that imo and there are clear and obvious reasons why the bigger picture isn't as dark now as it is being painted by some. Within those 5 years worth of losses listed above we have had the Pedro rebuild (15 to 20m on transfers excluding wages) and then the Gerrard rebuild to finance (which was even bigger with a higher wage bracket), hugely expensive stadium and training ground upgrades and refurbishments which have since been completed, constant legal battles the full 5 years, limited retail and merchandise profit going directly back into the club due to the Ashley issues (less of an issue now) and then the massive financial impact of covid which affected every club the world over. All of which was financed mainly by the board investment with little to no player trading in the sense of outgoings bringing money back in.

What it does clearly highlight is we cannot continue to just throw money at the squad year on year and not get a return, in terms of player sales, on that investment in order to remove the club from being a going concern. Turnover for last season will be north of 80m imo and we will show a profit for the first time in a good while, but not as big a profit as many are hoping for and certainly not enough, without sales, to spend millions upon millions on incoming players. There will be a modest transfer budget which we will simply have to understand and accept until an Aribo, Kamara or Bassey goes.
 

Gstq93

Active Member
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-)
It’s the same in my work , 2 joiners who support Motherwell saying we have no money
 

104Bear

Well-Known Member
Official Ticketer
David "I never took a penny out of Rangers " Murray?

Average related party transactions of £3m+ per annum told a different story
Yep, I read an article back then that showed more money going in the direction of MIM than to Rangers.
 

RangersEasyOK!

Well-Known Member
This has been a very interesting thread. I've been impressed with a lot of the input on here. Thanks for the education.
I intended to look through the accounts myself and try and make some sense from them, with regards to understanding the recorded loss vs club value.

Firstly, I want to state I'm not a qualified accountant (so I'm happy to be corrected with any inaccuracies I state, or mistaken definitions).

Note: I only looked into the last five years.

Ok... What did I notice that was worthy of mention...

The current outstanding debt (to be repaid, not converted to shares) noted on the latest annual accounts totalled £13.9M.
The account balance at the time (cash in the bank) showed as £3.3M.
This concluding a net available cash position of (-£10.6M).

Over the last five years the club has published accounts showing a £74M loss.
This suggests that our investors have picked up ~£64M of those costs and converted to shares, in the five year period.

Interestingly of note, I decided to calculate the squad value for each season, totalling estimated values (only for players owned by the club, so excluding loans).
I used Transfermarkt as my source for this. Yes, I know they are far from perfect, however they had the data required and they are an unbiased source.
Transfermarkt valued our squad value at £86.4M for 20/21 season (same period of last published accounts). In season 16/17 (the same time period as the earliest accounts I reviewed) they valued the squad at £12.1M.
This difference is a squad value that has increased by ~£74M. Interestingly this figure is the same as the loss for that five year period. This suggests the costs have been balanced off by the increase in squad value, meaning the shareholders have a good representation of money invested reflecting the current club value (therefore share value), due to the increase in asset values.

I appreciate this is a fairly simplistic view, and doesn't consider fluctuation in other assets (i.e. Ibrox, Training Centre, Edminston House, etc.). Then there are many other factors that affect value that I've excluded.

Furthermore, by reviewing the accounts it highlighted that the club hasn't been growing in value in a cash sense, but has been in an asset sense. Any cash shortfalls have often been covered by investors and loans. This probably explains why there aren't available funds to go spending big in this transfer window. This cash will only become available from any profit returned this year. However, and purely speculative, I'd be surprised if this generates much cash to spend after covering the debt on the books. Maybe £5M-£10M (a bit of a guess, without seeing actual accounts). Otherwise we will need to generate more cash to spend with more loans, investment, or player sales.

To summarise, I was comforted with the club position based on the increase I've assumed in the club value, and that justifying the losses over the past five years. However, that could suddenly change with our three most valuable assets (according to Transfermarkt) all potentially leaving the club for nothing next year. So contract extensions, or sales of these players (close to their valuations), is important to secure the club value/balance sheet.
The accounts are skewed because there are two loans for the same thing showing.

One from Dave King that was being paid off in October 21 and the loan from Bennet/Johnson/Wofhardt that could be argued was used to pay off Kings loan.

There was going to be another loan for upto £7m to cover running costs to end of last season but that funding gap is likely covered through elements of Gerrard comp, Patterson sale and Euro run.

Our cash income is increasing through commercial sales and then will get a further boost through the additional income generated in Blue Sky Lounge.
 

RangersEasyOK!

Well-Known Member
Yep, I read an article back then that showed more money going in the direction of MIM than to Rangers.
Murray took out money hand over fist.

He only ever put money into Rangers once and that was when folk f.u.c.ked off his share issue and it was the admin fees and some shares he had to buy.

The rest was buying the club originally and taking on its debt. Everything else was income generated by the club, fans, sales, sponsorship, prize money and loans.

He just saddled us with a shitload of debt we had to pay off because he was an awful chairman and a worse human being.

Whyte gets the grief but Murray is responsible for our years in the lower reaches and the battle to get back to where we belong.
 

Cahoochie

Well-Known Member
Think it’s sometimes easy to think of Rangers as just the first team player pool and the associated costs rather than the massive machine required to run the Club.
The first team squad will probably be the major cost but the Club is a major employer and user of local services, so there’s a bit of an “iceberg” that is easy to lose from view.
 

WDYGH

Well-Known Member
I am able to split up balance sheets giving the value of shares and P/L etc but with Rangers at present we know we are running at a loss and better to wait until the next set of results to get the current trend.. Covid cost the club badly and wages increasing with transfers in did not help.
This year the run in Europe will be beneficial but although this brings in much needed cash there are also high expenses for this competition mainly in travel which for a football club is never cheap.
My view is we can hopefully break even and any players sales or off wages can go to buy new players plus some extra cash which can be made available.
Football clubs are very difficult to value with players having a value which until sold means very little.
If we can now break even and then continue to go far in the CL or at worst get into the CL only then can we look forward to better days.
My view comes from having financial qualifications and having Rangers as a previous client
and being able to pick up some info in hospitality but that about it these days.
but things do look a lot better.
I’m sorry but if we bring in £20m in fees and reach a European final then there must be money to spend. If not, the board need to go.
 

WDYGH

Well-Known Member
The board that have converted £50m debt to equity to leave us with only £5m loan outstanding?

That board must go?
The board that have us playing second fiddle to a shite Celtc side. Our board aren’t willing to stand up for the club and fans.
 

Valley Bluenose

RTV? Completed it mate!
I’m sorry but if we bring in £20m in fees and reach a European final then there must be money to spend. If not, the board need to go.
You've overshot on your estimation of fees. Patterson was £9m upfront, a further £3m guaranteed but in staged payments, plus the potential further £4m in add-ons.

Gerrard, I've no idea, but let's say £4m, less any costs for bringing in GvB and the rest of his team.

So maybe £13m in total.

Then there's the settlement with the Fat C*nt (probably in excess of £3m). Then there's - hopefully - the clearing of any loans (minimum £5.5m). Then there's the bonus payments to players and staff for reaching Seville (I recall after Manchester '08 it was reported that we'd paid out so much in bonuses that we barely made a profit on the run).

You cannot simply look at incomings and not consider the outgoings.
 

WDYGH

Well-Known Member
You've overshot on your estimation of fees. Patterson was £9m upfront, a further £3m guaranteed but in staged payments, plus the potential further £4m in add-ons.

Gerrard, I've no idea, but let's say £4m, less any costs for bringing in GvB and the rest of his team.

So maybe £13m in total.

Then there's the settlement with the Fat C*nt (probably in excess of £3m). Then there's - hopefully - the clearing of any loans (minimum £5.5m). Then there's the bonus payments to players and staff for reaching Seville (I recall after Manchester '08 it was reported that we'd paid out so much in bonuses that we barely made a profit on the run).

You cannot simply look at incomings and not consider the outgoings.
The reported figures were £8m for Gerrard et al, so let’s say £17m.

When all is said and done, the board sign off on the contracts, bonuses, etc.

The buck stops with them to make us the number one and playing second fiddle to the bheasts will never be good enough.
 

WDYGH

Well-Known Member
So you would rather we had someone screaming and shouting but have us £50m+ in debt to be where we are just now?
No, I would rather the board either put in the money or find somebody that will. The fans have stepped up consistently.

Covid didn’t only affect Rangers, despite the excuses you hear on here. Other have strengthened and we haven’t. That is down to the board.

If we had signed the attacking midfielder we needed last summer, we’d have beaten Malmo and got the CL money.
 

Valley Bluenose

RTV? Completed it mate!
The reported figures were £8m for Gerrard et al, so let’s say £17m.

When all is said and done, the board sign off on the contracts, bonuses, etc.

The buck stops with them to make us the number one and playing second fiddle to the bheasts will never be good enough.
Not anywhere I read. Happy to be corrected if you have a reliable link. Sky, I think, said circa £3m-£4m and BBC Scotland said circa £4.5m.
 

RangersEasyOK!

Well-Known Member
No, I would rather the board either put in the money or find somebody that will. The fans have stepped up consistently.

Covid didn’t only affect Rangers, despite the excuses you hear on here. Other have strengthened and we haven’t. That is down to the board.

If we had signed the attacking midfielder we needed last summer, we’d have beaten Malmo and got the CL money.
The board havent put money in?

Do you not read the accounts or even my reply to you.

So you want a board that will cover more than the £100m+ of losses we have so far and leave us no debt. Spend more than that to beat Celtic?

Scream and shout about them?

Do you also want them to be members of a flute band when you are also in your wild little tantrum that is based on zero logic?
 

Valley Bluenose

RTV? Completed it mate!
At the time it was widely reported Gerrard was £4m and for the rest it was another £4m.
Where?

Certainly not here:


Or here:


Or here:


And good old Bazza had it at £2m-£3m:rolleyes::

 

Barrymoped

Well-Known Member
The board havent put money in?

Do you not read the accounts or even my reply to you.

So you want a board that will cover more than the £100m+ of losses we have so far and leave us no debt. Spend more than that to beat Celtic?

Scream and shout about them?

Do you also want them to be members of a flute band when you are also in your wild little tantrum that is based on zero logic?
The expectations of some of our support really staggers me at times, it’s like spoilt children who don’t get their own way and simply cannot be reasoned with.
 

RangersEasyOK!

Well-Known Member
The expectations of some of our support really staggers me at times, it’s like spoilt children who don’t get their own way and simply cannot be reasoned with.
Chase them because they have spent £100m+ of their own money over what the supporters put in!!

Its just crazy.

Robertson and Bisgrove I can understand the frustration and anger at.

Park etc who have funded us to the point of self sufficiency is just childish in the extreme
 

Kylegib

Well-Known Member
18 mill of that was lost income in ticket and hospitality sales

The board did back him though by keeping players we had
No he wasn't backed regardless of how much spin people try to use and that was why we lost the full management team and ultimately lost the league. We simply have to back Gio and his management team because if we don't they will not hang around.
 
Top