Rangers issue 14 million shares for 25pence each

The loans outstanding at the last balance sheet were interest bearing loans from Dave King and John Bennett/,Julian Wolhardt. These will not be converted they will be repaid. DK’s has already been repaid and The JB/ JW loan is repayable over 7 years. There were no soft loans outstanding at 30 June 21 so this must be new cash invested.
Hope all is well with you boracay ranger.
Given the timing is it reasonable to assume the new cash is intended for Gio and January's transfer window?
 
I would like to buy these RANGERS shares so how do I go about spending £100 to get them, is there contact details.?
Would like to see some sort of option to by some shares in conjunction with my season ticket,Depending on my financial circumstances at the time.
They’re not going to get a fan in my situation buying thousands of pounds worth of shares.
 
8 million recently brought in with this new share issue and gerrard compensation money. Think that will cover the 7 million shortfall which was being mentioned a lot, if that shortfall was already covered though then it could potentially be 8 million for Gio to use in January, interesting
The compensation money is just to pay out the remainder of his and the coaching staff's contract. It's reasonable to assume that this will just go towards the new coaching team's salaries. It is just equalising out those costs so in effect this is not extra money or a 'windfall' to spend on players etc. The Euro money however could be viewed as additional revenue.
 
Cliff notes - very rich Rangers fan supporting the club with investment

Perhaps a couple of million for Gio to play with in January

exactly. its rich rangers fan investing in the club, it dilutes the shares but who gives a fck? Only celtic fans seem distressed that the shares are being diluted. Only if you invested in Rangers for a profit would it be a concern, otherwise great to see our directors are fans and not investors.
 
The loans outstanding at the last balance sheet were interest bearing loans from Dave King and John Bennett/,Julian Wolhardt. These will not be converted they will be repaid. DK’s has already been repaid and The JB/ JW loan is repayable over 7 years. There were no soft loans outstanding at 30 June 21 so this must be new cash invested.
See the first sentence of my post mate - a further £8.5m in loans post Annual Report period. Its on the last page of the Annual Report. Though offset to a degree by the £4.5m from Tifosy. I'm simply speculating that the latest share issue is to convert some of those loans to equity - which makes eminent sense to me. So, fresh investment, but possibly earmarked to meet this seasons shortfall. Park and Bennett committed, I believe, to meet that - so should become clearer when we see who purchased the shares.
 
Last edited:
The compensation money is just to pay out the remainder of his and the coaching staff's contract. It's reasonable to assume that this will just go towards the new coaching team's salaries. It is just equalising out those costs so in effect this is not extra money or a 'windfall' to spend on players etc. The Euro money however could be viewed as additional revenue.
Did somebody tell you this, or is this really how you understand it to be? Got to tell you it's right up there with the cream of Kerryfailonomics.
 
The compensation money is just to pay out the remainder of his and the coaching staff's contract. It's reasonable to assume that this will just go towards the new coaching team's salaries. It is just equalising out those costs so in effect this is not extra money or a 'windfall' to spend on players etc. The Euro money however could be viewed as additional revenue.
No, the compensation is additional revenue as well.

The current management salaries are already accounted for in our accounts and will be paid in the same way they would had Gerrard not left.

So that £4.5million is indeed additional revenue we wouldn’t have got had he not left.
 
The compensation money is just to pay out the remainder of his and the coaching staff's contract. It's reasonable to assume that this will just go towards the new coaching team's salaries. It is just equalising out those costs so in effect this is not extra money or a 'windfall' to spend on players etc. The Euro money however could be viewed as additional revenue.
No doubt a lot of the Gerrard and co compensation money will be going to the new coaching team, I'd guess that with Makaay, Dave Vos, GVB etc that our new coaching staff might cost more in wages than the last bunch. So perhaps a lot of the recent cash injection of 8 million won't be spent on transfers, hopefully a little bit though. As you say also Europa league knockouts is more money, plus just winning a Europa game is a decent chunk of money in itself.

I'm hopeful that Gio has some money to work with in January without having to sell first, even 3-4 million could go a long way for Rangers - 1 extra good quality CB is really needed right now. Ross Wilson also did say the board will look into possibility this during Gio's introduction conference
 
No, the compensation is additional revenue as well.

The current management salaries are already accounted for in our accounts and will be paid in the same way they would had Gerrard not left.

So that £4.5million is indeed additional revenue we wouldn’t have got had he not left.
Yes the compensation money was what Villa agreed to pay Rangers for terminating the contracts of Steven Gerrard, and staff he took with him.
Gio and the new staff will be paid according to the new deals they agreed with Rangers.
The money we got from Villa can be considered the same as player trading revenue.
 
No, the compensation is additional revenue as well.

The current management salaries are already accounted for in our accounts and will be paid in the same way they would had Gerrard not left.

So that £4.5million is indeed additional revenue we wouldn’t have got had he not left.
It's additional revenue that will go towards meeting some of the costs that our existing revenue doesn't cover. It doesn't mean that we will be able to spend it on new players.
 
Yes the compensation money was what Villa agreed to pay Rangers for terminating the contracts of Steven Gerrard, and staff he took with him.
Gio and the new staff will be paid according to the new deals they agreed with Rangers.
The money we got from Villa can be considered the same as player trading revenue.
Exactly. I’m not sure why people are struggling to understand this.

Working on the assumption our new team are on broadly similar salaries then it’s all already accounted for.

This £4.5million is extra and may be used to plug our deficit or give Gio cash in January, it’s up to the board how they use it.
 
It's additional revenue that will go towards meeting some of the costs that our existing revenue doesn't cover. It doesn't mean that we will be able to spend it on new players.
What additional costs will they be?

Edit - i hadn't read your post properly when posting original reply. Sorry about that.
Thing is this compensation money from Villa could indeed all be used on new players. This assumption it has to be used to plug a deficit lacks understanding of the operational loss strategy Rangers have been using.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
It's additional revenue that will go towards meeting some of the costs that our existing revenue doesn't cover. It doesn't mean that we will be able to spend it on new players.
I think it's worth noting that the part in bold is an opinion. The board may or may not decide to use the windfall to close the funding gap. If they already had plans to close the funding gap, they could stick with them.
 
exactly. its rich rangers fan investing in the club, it dilutes the shares but who gives a fck? Only celtic fans seem distressed that the shares are being diluted. Only if you invested in Rangers for a profit would it be a concern, otherwise great to see our directors are fans and not investors.
It doesn't dilute anything. An issue of shares at the correct value does not affect the value of any individual share. It will result in you (a person not taking new shares in the issue) having a smaller % holding of the total, but the value of the company in total increases in proportion to the increase in shares.

Example:

There are 10 shares in a company valued at £1 each. Total company assets are £10 in the bank. If you own 2 shares you have 20% of the company and a value of 2 x £1 = £2

The company issues another 5 shares to an individual (not you) at a price of £1 each

There are now 15 shares in the company. But there is also now £15 in the bank.

Your shareholding is now only 2/15 = 13.3% but the shares are still worth £1 each because there is £15 in the bank divided by 15 shares. So your 2 shares are worth 2 x £1 = £2 still. You have not lost any value.

All that's happened is more shares of a bigger pie

It's a slightly different calculation with loan conversion to equity but it amounts to exactly the same thing.

The only time you would suffer a "dilution" would be if the new shares were issued at less than their actual value (say 20p if we agree that 25p is the correct value). That is where the individuals buying the new shares would benefit at your expense.

IMO this is why shares were issued at 20p earlier to repay some loans - effectively giving them an interest payment for the risk capital they had put in. And not unreasonable to my mind.

Hope this helps some non-financial bears out there
 
The compensation money is just to pay out the remainder of his and the coaching staff's contract. It's reasonable to assume that this will just go towards the new coaching team's salaries. It is just equalising out those costs so in effect this is not extra money or a 'windfall' to spend on players etc. The Euro money however could be viewed as additional revenue.
I don’t quite agree with that. We would have budgeted for the cost of a management team through the next couple of years and therefore that was always going to be cash outflow, whether to Gerrard or Gio.

This is cash in from Villa and is additional funds. Whether we use it for transfers or to pay the management team, it’s additional funds.

Gio and team had no compensation
 
It doesn't dilute anything. An issue of shares at the correct value does not affect the value of any individual share. It will result in you (a person not taking new shares in the issue) having a smaller % holding of the total, but the value of the company in total increases in proportion to the increase in shares.

Example:

There are 10 shares in a company valued at £1 each. Total company assets are £10 in the bank. If you own 2 shares you have 20% of the company and a value of 2 x £1 = £2

The company issues another 5 shares to an individual (not you) at a price of £1 each

There are now 15 shares in the company. But there is also now £15 in the bank.

Your shareholding is now only 2/15 = 13.3% but the shares are still worth £1 each because there is £15 in the bank divided by 15 shares. So your 2 shares are worth 2 x £1 = £2 still. You have not lost any value.

All that's happened is more shares of a bigger pie

It's a slightly different calculation with loan conversion to equity but it amounts to exactly the same thing.

The only time you would suffer a "dilution" would be if the new shares were issued at less than their actual value (say 20p if we agree that 25p is the correct value). That is where the individuals buying the new shares would benefit at your expense.

IMO this is why shares were issued at 20p earlier to repay some loans - effectively giving them an interest payment for the risk capital they had put in. And not unreasonable to my mind.

Hope this helps some non-financial bears out there
Good post. That said, in examples like this, the "market" may have already priced in the injection of fresh capital if it was expected.

In our case, one question is whether 25p is fair value. With 408m shares prior to this recent issue, that would have valued the company at £102m. Post issue, is the company now worth £105.5m? In our case since the money was expected, and it is being used to fund a shortfall, I think an argument can be made that it is not increasing the value of the company. On the other hand, I think it's possible that the investors are still overpaying - e.g. if the true value of the company is closer to £80m or around 20p per share.
 
It doesn't dilute anything. An issue of shares at the correct value does not affect the value of any individual share. It will result in you (a person not taking new shares in the issue) having a smaller % holding of the total, but the value of the company in total increases in proportion to the increase in shares.

Example:

There are 10 shares in a company valued at £1 each. Total company assets are £10 in the bank. If you own 2 shares you have 20% of the company and a value of 2 x £1 = £2

The company issues another 5 shares to an individual (not you) at a price of £1 each

There are now 15 shares in the company. But there is also now £15 in the bank.

Your shareholding is now only 2/15 = 13.3% but the shares are still worth £1 each because there is £15 in the bank divided by 15 shares. So your 2 shares are worth 2 x £1 = £2 still. You have not lost any value.

All that's happened is more shares of a bigger pie

It's a slightly different calculation with loan conversion to equity but it amounts to exactly the same thing.

The only time you would suffer a "dilution" would be if the new shares were issued at less than their actual value (say 20p if we agree that 25p is the correct value). That is where the individuals buying the new shares would benefit at your expense.

IMO this is why shares were issued at 20p earlier to repay some loans - effectively giving them an interest payment for the risk capital they had put in. And not unreasonable to my mind.

Hope this helps some non-financial bears out there

many thanks, is the value of the company actually really rising? Or is the addition of more shares just more slices given of the companys worth?

If a companys real value is £100 and there is 100 shares at £1 each.

You have £10 worth of shares, ie 10%, The company offers a further £20 shares at £1 which you dont buy yourself.

The company is now valued at £120, you invested £10 and you now own 8.3%.

This as you say is actually true.


But in real terms, in my view. The company is only worth what its worth. More shares does not increase the companys worth, just gives more slices of the same pie. ie share value is now fallen from £1 to 83p, so your £10 is now in fact £8.30 if the companys value have not in fact risen.
 
Last edited:
What additional costs will they be?

Edit - i hadn't read your post properly when posting original reply. Sorry about that.
Thing is this compensation money from Villa could indeed all be used on new players. This assumption it has to be used to plug a deficit lacks understanding of the operational loss strategy Rangers have been using.
The assumption fully understands the financial strategy that Rangers has been using but also analyses the accounts to know that it has to change, based on both the figures and the board's comments. To assume that it could all be used on players shows a lack of understanding of the potential loss this season.
 
The compensation money is just to pay out the remainder of his and the coaching staff's contract. It's reasonable to assume that this will just go towards the new coaching team's salaries. It is just equalising out those costs so in effect this is not extra money or a 'windfall' to spend on players etc. The Euro money however could be viewed as additional revenue.
Ffs the new coaching teams salary will come from the salary we no longer pay Gerrard and Co.

:)):))
 
Exactly. I’m not sure why people are struggling to understand this.

Working on the assumption our new team are on broadly similar salaries then it’s all already accounted for.

This £4.5million is extra and may be used to plug our deficit or give Gio cash in January, it’s up to the board how they use it.
I'm just not sure that is correct. If the coaching staff's salary is 'already accounted for', surely that is just saying yes we know we have those burdens and is part of ordinary operating costs. I wouldn't imagine that this would be sitting accrued in a bank ready to be paid out over the length of the deals (had they all stayed)?

So if that value of £4.5m was paid as compensation, then this was the agreed contracted figure of the remaining combined value of all the coaching staffs' contracts. OK it could be looked as as money up front but it would then all go towards Gio and his staff salaries. So it's not additional revenue to be used elsewhere, it just goes towards paying the new staff I would have thought?
 
I would like to buy these RANGERS shares so how do I go about spending £100 to get them, is there contact details.?
Yes I was the same, if they had put a smaller limit the last issue I would have bought some just to be a shareholder in Rangers
 
The compensation money is just to pay out the remainder of his and the coaching staff's contract. It's reasonable to assume that this will just go towards the new coaching team's salaries. It is just equalising out those costs so in effect this is not extra money or a 'windfall' to spend on players etc. The Euro money however could be viewed as additional revenue.

'Its reasonable to assume'

Clearly it isn't.
 
I'm just not sure that is correct. If the coaching staff's salary is 'already accounted for', surely that is just saying yes we know we have those burdens and is part of ordinary operating costs. I wouldn't imagine that this would be sitting accrued in a bank ready to be paid out over the length of the deals (had they all stayed)?

So if that value of £4.5m was paid as compensation, then this was the agreed contracted figure of the remaining combined value of all the coaching staffs' contracts. OK it could be looked as as money up front but it would then all go towards Gio and his staff salaries. So it's not additional revenue to be used elsewhere, it just goes towards paying the new staff I would have thought?
You have to be taking the piss. If you are serious then give yourself a slap, and figure out a way to help yourself.
 
I'm just not sure that is correct. If the coaching staff's salary is 'already accounted for', surely that is just saying yes we know we have those burdens and is part of ordinary operating costs. I wouldn't imagine that this would be sitting accrued in a bank ready to be paid out over the length of the deals (had they all stayed)?

So if that value of £4.5m was paid as compensation, then this was the agreed contracted figure of the remaining combined value of all the coaching staffs' contracts. OK it could be looked as as money up front but it would then all go towards Gio and his staff salaries. So it's not additional revenue to be used elsewhere, it just goes towards paying the new staff I would have thought?
Er, it’s money we wouldn’t otherwise have and the costs of employing a management team will have broadly stayed the same.
 
You have to be taking the piss. If you are serious then give yourself a slap, and figure out a way to help yourself.
Hey I'm no finance expert, just looking at it as income and outgoings. I'll bow out on this. For me I just don’t see this as a similar to a player trading fee (Managers and coaches don’t have transfer fees or trading windows) more of an executive contract buy out.
 
I'm just not sure that is correct. If the coaching staff's salary is 'already accounted for', surely that is just saying yes we know we have those burdens and is part of ordinary operating costs. I wouldn't imagine that this would be sitting accrued in a bank ready to be paid out over the length of the deals (had they all stayed)?

So if that value of £4.5m was paid as compensation, then this was the agreed contracted figure of the remaining combined value of all the coaching staffs' contracts. OK it could be looked as as money up front but it would then all go towards Gio and his staff salaries. So it's not additional revenue to be used elsewhere, it just goes towards paying the new staff I would have thought?
Are you thick?

Where do you think all the money we were paying Gerrard and his team is going?
 
The compensation money is just to pay out the remainder of his and the coaching staff's contract. It's reasonable to assume that this will just go towards the new coaching team's salaries. It is just equalising out those costs so in effect this is not extra money or a 'windfall' to spend on players etc. The Euro money however could be viewed as additional revenue.
Sorry I’m a bit confused! My understanding was that there was a release clause in Gerrards contract which Villa triggered. They will have paid this to Rangers and it will be new money improving our cashflow position.
 
It looks like investors filling about half of the known £7million money already noted we required to see us to the end of the season.

I assume it will be noted on the club website on Monday or Tuesday and once they have updated the list of shareholders who hold over 3% we will see a change in that and can work out who has ponied up!
Would you expect the £4m compensation for Gerrard and Co plus the additional money for qualifying for Europa league KO stages were not included in projections of the £7m required to cover season shortfall?
 
I think it's worth noting that the part in bold is an opinion. The board may or may not decide to use the windfall to close the funding gap. If they already had plans to close the funding gap, they could stick with them.
Correct. In addition the funding Gap comment was worded in such a way to allow for the vagaries of sporting success and/or player sales impacting on cashflow. It will in many respects come down to what assurances were given to attract the new manager.
 
The compensation money is just to pay out the remainder of his and the coaching staff's contract. It's reasonable to assume that this will just go towards the new coaching team's salaries. It is just equalising out those costs so in effect this is not extra money or a 'windfall' to spend on players etc. The Euro money however could be viewed as additional revenue.
We were paying Gerrard and co to the end of the season. We are now paying Gio and co a largely similar amount, I would assume, instead.. This would have been in the budget for the season.

The compensation for buying Gerrard and co out of their contracts is additional money.

It's not that difficult to comprehend.
 
I'm just not sure that is correct. If the coaching staff's salary is 'already accounted for', surely that is just saying yes we know we have those burdens and is part of ordinary operating costs. I wouldn't imagine that this would be sitting accrued in a bank ready to be paid out over the length of the deals (had they all stayed)?

So if that value of £4.5m was paid as compensation, then this was the agreed contracted figure of the remaining combined value of all the coaching staffs' contracts. OK it could be looked as as money up front but it would then all go towards Gio and his staff salaries. So it's not additional revenue to be used elsewhere, it just goes towards paying the new staff I would have thought?
We would Gerrard etc £x. His salary is budgeted for prior to a ball being kicked this season.
Villa buy out his contract for £4.5m (or whatever that may be). This is cash in to our bank
We then employ GvB to replace Gerrard on, let's assume, a similar salary package.

So we've budgeted to pay out £x per annum on one set of salaries and now pay the same, approx, for the new management team.

We are still paying the budgeted amount of wages but have had a £4.5m (or so) boost to cash on hand.

If we needed £7m of funding to see us through the season, we have just received £4.5m of it.
 
I have don't think there's another club in Europe that frets over finance as much as us. We're doing OK. Place your trust in the board. They obviously know what they are doing.
 
We would Gerrard etc £x. His salary is budgeted for prior to a ball being kicked this season.
Villa buy out his contract for £4.5m (or whatever that may be). This is cash in to our bank
We then employ GvB to replace Gerrard on, let's assume, a similar salary package.

So we've budgeted to pay out £x per annum on one set of salaries and now pay the same, approx, for the new management team.

We are still paying the budgeted amount of wages but have had a £4.5m (or so) boost to cash on hand.

If we needed £7m of funding to see us through the season, we have just received £4.5m of it.
Yep. Important also to note that the extra prize money from EL qualification would not have been allowed to be included either.
 
If we needed £7m of funding to see us through the season, we have just received £4.5m of it.
The other thing to keep in mind is these funding gaps that come up in our season are not a surprise to anyone running our club. The gaps are within the structured loss that the investors/directors agree to cover in advance. They provide the auditors of our accounts with assurances they will make this money available when needed so they will sign off on our accounts.
Basically it's not a bit of good fortune to get 4.5m from Villa for Stevie G. Even if we could have held onto him that 7m was covered.
 
Back
Top