Last five years income / loss / balance?

Grigo Yossarian

Well-Known Member
At the time it was widely reported Gerrard was £4m and for the rest it was another £4m.

Everybody knows your attitude to the board mate, but at least use accurate data & evidence if you’re attacking them.

Can I suggest - If you’re so right that they’re doing such a bad job, either put your own money in to have a say or tell us all who you actually believe will put their own cash into the football industry ?

Here’s a clue about pretty much all football investors in UK - Rich men who want a toy to play with or fans of that club.
 

Kylegib

Well-Known Member
£9m upfront, £3m in installments and £4m in add ons is how it has always been reported
Which adds up to £16m which is what I said although it's only a part of the £16m that is paid up front, then we had the compensation for Gerrard and his management team then European revenue from reaching a European final and we're being told that we need to sell before we can buy. If this board can't back our manager in the transfer market then we'll be lucky if Gio hangs around.
 

RangersEasyOK!

Well-Known Member
Which adds up to £16m which is what I said although it's only a part of the £16m that is paid up front, then we had the compensation for Gerrard and his management team then European revenue from reaching a European final and we're being told that we need to sell before we can buy. If this board can't back our manager in the transfer market then we'll be lucky if Gio hangs around.
Yeah you said it in response to me stating what Gerrard comp was reported as. Implying that either Gerrard comp was wrong or the reported fee for Patterson was wrong.

Gio knew what he was joining.

Only folk on here are saying we need to sell before we can buy.

We have a £7m funding gap from last season the money was used on, £400k funding gap on the upcoming season it will be used on and then determine what we retain as cash in bank.

Likely anywhere between £5-10m before we need player trading but based on what the club decide to keep as cash in bank.
 

KGR98

Well-Known Member
Wonder how much the new catering deal could be worth if as the club state we keep most of the profit from it must be worth thousands per game
 

The Blue Iceberg

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...
I hope for your sake your not employed in the financial sector mate if your boss is anything to go by! :oops:
 

RfcIbrox

Well-Known Member
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.
However Goldson will appear as a wage cost for the length of his contract and has no real value as an asset as he's unlikely to be sold. In fact he could get injured and be a long term cost. On the plus we didn't pay a transfer fee for a new centre back (except a steal for Souttar) and Goldson also won't have an annual amortised cost. Sensible financial business for that part of the team given overall lack of cash and debt on the books. We have the pole to come in and Tav. Prob keep Borna. Centre midfield is also strong enough. Weaker middle to front and Jo will go and prob Alfie and another.

The guarantee of at least Europa league football and sell of at least 2 current stars (Jo and Alfie) should put at least £40m into the coffers. Bassey going for £25m is probably too high a price to ignore. That would take the £40m up to at least £65m. Given we need to strengthen up front I'd see that's where some money would go. We simply have to sell and reinvest wisely as a team rebuild is on the cards and your analysis shows we don't have money lying around without major selling, but we probably only need to fill a couple of positions middle to front. Let's say Kent even goes as well then every player we sell we can buy decent replacements for less money so it should be an improving balance sheet and P/L.

Our main target next year will be the league. We don't have to buy big to beat most of the teams. We basically have to beat the scum and they are not as good as they think they are.
 
Last edited:

Hoosier Ranger

Well-Known Member
Which adds up to £16m which is what I said although it's only a part of the £16m that is paid up front, then we had the compensation for Gerrard and his management team then European revenue from reaching a European final and we're being told that we need to sell before we can buy. If this board can't back our manager in the transfer market then we'll be lucky if Gio hangs around.
The Board backed up the club by investing £26M last year to pay for the losses associated to the COVID year.

The year before that, they invested another £17M to help pay off losses to keep the club moving.
 

whitbyontbear

Well-Known Member
A coupleof things. Firstly, why pay off the debt if it is interest free and the lender isn't too worried about when it is to be repaid. If it were a bank loan or overdraft at zero interest we wouldn't be bothering about it. Then, outgoings usually rise to meet incomings. If you get a pay raise then the wife will spend more on Tide and Vim as you have more money to spend. Thirdly, a Balance Sheet is a "snapshot " of the accounts at a given day. Look at the P&L first to see how we are doing. The BS will contain a lot of stuff that accountants will shove in to mitigate taxes etc.
I am waiting for Hillhead Bear to shove his head above the parapet before I believe anyone else.
 

dlt

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.
Simple as that eh?

WDYGH for chairman!
 

Kylegib

Well-Known Member
The Board backed up the club by investing £26M last year to pay for the losses associated to the COVID year.

The year before that, they invested another £17M to help pay off losses to keep the club moving.
So we've performed fantastically well in Europe over the last few years but can't strengthen the squad. How many managers do you think will hang around if we don't or can't back them bearing in mind we lost a full management team that performed well in Europe, wiped the floor with Celtic and won a league title undefeated.
 

RangersEasyOK!

Well-Known Member
A coupleof things. Firstly, why pay off the debt if it is interest free and the lender isn't too worried about when it is to be repaid. If it were a bank loan or overdraft at zero interest we wouldn't be bothering about it. Then, outgoings usually rise to meet incomings. If you get a pay raise then the wife will spend more on Tide and Vim as you have more money to spend. Thirdly, a Balance Sheet is a "snapshot " of the accounts at a given day. Look at the P&L first to see how we are doing. The BS will contain a lot of stuff that accountants will shove in to mitigate taxes etc.
I am waiting for Hillhead Bear to shove his head above the parapet before I believe anyone else.
The debt we have left isnt interest free, its around 6 or 8%.

We shouldnt be paying it off early in the current climate with the inflation rate as it is
 

Valley Bluenose

RTV? Completed it mate!
A coupleof things. Firstly, why pay off the debt if it is interest free and the lender isn't too worried about when it is to be repaid. If it were a bank loan or overdraft at zero interest we wouldn't be bothering about it. Then, outgoings usually rise to meet incomings. If you get a pay raise then the wife will spend more on Tide and Vim as you have more money to spend. Thirdly, a Balance Sheet is a "snapshot " of the accounts at a given day. Look at the P&L first to see how we are doing. The BS will contain a lot of stuff that accountants will shove in to mitigate taxes etc.
I am waiting for Hillhead Bear to shove his head above the parapet before I believe anyone else.
The loan the three Directors took out of £5.25m (to pay off King) is not interest-free. Its at 6% . Neither was King's loan before that interest-free. We've moved on from 'free' money it would appear.

There was a further investor loan of £8.5m made after the date of the last report as well (see last page of Accounts) but no indication given as to interest rate on that one.

To mitigate that a bit, we also had the injection of £4.5m through the share issue, which was post-Accounts as well.
 
Last edited:

RangersEasyOK!

Well-Known Member
So we've performed fantastically well in Europe over the last few years but can't strengthen the squad. How many managers do you think will hang around if we don't or can't back them bearing in mind we lost a full management team that performed well in Europe, wiped the floor with Celtic and won a league title undefeated.
If you want to dig into it we had a manager and his agent touting himself around. Was nothing to do with being backed or not
 

Hoosier Ranger

Well-Known Member
So we've performed fantastically well in Europe over the last few years but can't strengthen the squad. How many managers do you think will hang around if we don't or can't back them bearing in mind we lost a full management team that performed well in Europe, wiped the floor with Celtic and won a league title undefeated.

It's called being financially responsible.

Board has poured in a lot of money to keep the lights on and put out a squad that went to PKs in the Europa League final and with back to back Champions League money opportunities.

Gerrard won a league title and took the bigger money in the EPL to finish mid-table. Let's not make him out as Walter Smith.
 

Hoosier Ranger

Well-Known Member
A coupleof things. Firstly, why pay off the debt if it is interest free and the lender isn't too worried about when it is to be repaid. If it were a bank loan or overdraft at zero interest we wouldn't be bothering about it. Then, outgoings usually rise to meet incomings. If you get a pay raise then the wife will spend more on Tide and Vim as you have more money to spend. Thirdly, a Balance Sheet is a "snapshot " of the accounts at a given day. Look at the P&L first to see how we are doing. The BS will contain a lot of stuff that accountants will shove in to mitigate taxes etc.
I am waiting for Hillhead Bear to shove his head above the parapet before I believe anyone else.
(1) The King loan had interest and he wanted payment. He is also directing C1872 to pay him money for his equity instead of C1872 helping strengthen the club.
(2) Our financials are still not good enough to get a bank loan. Two more solid seasons like this past one and we might be able to get 3rd party credit facilities.
(3) The Balance Sheet also has an account called "Retained Earnings" in the Equity section. This shows the net effects of the Income Statement. For Rangers, it shows that we have accumulated losses over £85M since the 2012. You are correct that the Balance Sheet is a snapshot but the Balance Sheet is important because it let banks know if your business qualifies for loans/credits (you Point #2). It can also help improve your operational efficiency, evaluate risk/return, cash flow projections and overall financial health. Yes, the Income Statement shows if business is to make a profit for a given time period. However, a well-run business should show increasing equity in the Balance Sheet. If your business isn’t doing that, looking at specific assets and liabilities on your Balance Sheet can help you figure out why.
 

Kylegib

Well-Known Member
It's called being financially responsible.

Board has poured in a lot of money to keep the lights on and put out a squad that went to PKs in the Europa League final and with back to back Champions League money opportunities.

Gerrard won a league title and took the bigger money in the EPL to finish mid-table. Let's not make him out as Walter Smith.
At no point have I made Gerrard out to be Walter Smith. Gerrard's achievement in taking us back to the top of Scottish football was remarkable whilst leaving a squad of players that are worth millions and managed to reach a European final. We lost Gerrard because we didn't back him after he won the league I sincerely hope we don't lose Gio in the same manner as I believe he'd want to sign his own players.
 

frazz

Well-Known Member
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.
Do I think he should have been given more money to spend to change then yes absoloutly

But the board should have taken that decision to sell a kamara, aribo etc if they couldn't provide funds due to the losses from covid
 

Kylegib

Well-Known Member
Do I think he should have been given more money to spend to change then yes absoloutly

But the board should have taken that decision to sell a kamara, aribo etc if they couldn't provide funds due to the losses from covid
Yes I agree
 

Keilso

Well-Known Member
Agree with Mark's comments: -

The largest single component is the wage bill and that is heavily skewed by how well we do in Europe and Cup competitions - ie, players tend to be on huge bonuses for European progression.

Usually a good bench mark for your typical football club is around 70% of staff wages, compared to revenue.

From the annual report: -

1920/21 - Revenue was 48M and staff wages were 48M, that's 100% and not good. However, revenue was effected by Covid.

1919/20 - Revenue was 59M and staff wages were 43M, that's around 73%, not too bad.

From my uneducated eye, I don't think wages, is the issue, 20/21 was obviously untypical, due to Covid.

I think the issue is a combination of the number of loans, payments to SD and past transfer payments (payments over a number of years).

Imo, we need to start reducing / paying the loans, stop f**cking up in court cases and keeping an eye on annual future transfer fees and we will be in good shape.

From the outside looking in, this may be what the board, have decided to do at this moment in time (Balance the books).
 
Top