Review of Rangers accounts 2020

Bluedell

Well-Known Member
Review of Rangers accounts 2020



Overview

The release of the annual accounts on a Friday evening wasn’t a good sign.

I was concerned when I downloaded them and they were worse than I had expected, showing a headline loss before tax of £17.8m but is it as bad as it seems? Yes and no.
  • No, the loss is funded by the directors/investors who have converted most of their loans into share capital.
  • No, we could have sold players to eliminate the loss if we so desired. We didn’t, unlike other clubs, and we are selling the benefit of that on the pitch.
  • Yes, losses of this level are not sustainable and the financing from the directors/investors will not continue indefinitely which make the require for Champions’ League football and/or regularly selling players for multi-million pound profits a requirement.
What is the loss?

Those who read my review last year may remember that we need to ignore notional interest that is included in the accounts as it is only there for accounting purposes and will never actually be paid.

The loss before tax of £17.8m can therefore be reduced by £1.9m and is actually £15.9m compared to last year’s loss of £8.7m, an increase of £7.2m

Why the increase in the loss?
  • An increase in staff costs of £8.9m
  • A decrease in the profit of sale of players of £2.4m
  • Increased amortisation of the purchase price of players of £1.2m (Kent and Helander)Partly offset by an increase in revenue of £5.8m
Revenue

Revenue increased from £53.2m to £59.0m (+£5.8m), mainly due to our European run. We generated £20.7m which is up £6.4m from the prior year which again highlights how important a run in Europe is to us.

Gate receipts and Hospitality rose 11.6% to £35.7m, despite the Covid-19 impact of playing 5 league games with no crowd and a small proportion of season ticket holders requesting a refund for the missed games.

Staff costs

Staff costs increased by 26% in the year, going from £34m to £43m, which was a result of bringing Gerrard to the club and a significant increase in the quality of the squad.

A 79 % increase over the last 2 years sounds bad but the following should be taken into account:
  • Staff costs as a percentage of revenue at 73.4% is around the same level as it was 2 years ago.
  • The average for the English Championship, for last season was 107% and was 94% and 78% for League 1 and League 2 in the prior year, so it shows that the level we have it is reasonable, albeit based on European income, which isn’t guaranteed.
  • Celtic’s staff costs are 25% higher than ours.
Other operating expenses

Other Operating Expenses (including matchday costs and the costs of maintaining the stadium and RTC) increased from £22m to £23.2m. This is disappointing considering we played 3 less homes games and the previous year’s figure was looked upon as being high due to the additional legal and professional fees of £3.6m, due mainly to the ongoing Sports Direct dispute.

We are not told what this year’s legal fees were, but they may have continued to be high, to allow us to sign the Castore deal.

Reducing Other Operating Expenses may impact the matchday experience for us so there’s a fine line in keeping costs under control and satisfying the fans, but it is an area where they need to keep a careful watch.

Purchase of players

Rangers spent £11m on players during the year. This would have mainly been on Kent and Helander. Given the sums involved, it appears that the purchase of Hagi was didn’t go through in this year’s accounts, despite reports to the contrary.

This also does not include the purchases of Itten and Roofe, which happened after the year-end.

Sale of players

We made a £0.7m profit on the sale of players, compared to £3.1m in the previous year. I assume that Candeias would make up a majority of this year’s profit.

However we need to be able to be making millions each year to sustain a break-even situation in the future. Our model looks to be largely working as we could have sold Morelos for a sum that would have allowed us to break-even, and going forward we may not be able to have the luxury to turn down 8-figure bids.

Retail

Retail income was £3.3m for the year which is the same as last year. However it appears that a majority of this has not been received as there is £2.3m outstanding and the club have commenced legal proceedings to recover it.

The Castore deal does not start until this season and therefore is not reflected in these accounts, and hopefully that will show an area of increase.

Although we are free of Sports Direct and have successfully negotiated a retail deal away from Ashley, it is disappointing to see the legal case is still ongoing and we may have to pay further money to SDI.

Cash

Cash has increased from £1m to £11m but I presume that this is due to the timing of the receipt of directors’ loans. We have £14.9m of debtors which is season ticket cash which is in respect of season tickets that are paid by supporters using deferred payment plans or credit cards so that will be converted into cash.

The credit card companies are passing on the cash over the course of a season to limit their risk. This isn’t an issue as it’s only a short term cashflow problem and it hasn’t prevented us from spending £15m on players after the financial year-end.

Funding

Director and shareholder loans outstanding last year were £11.2m, an additional net £21.8m was provided during the year and £17.7m were converted into shares, leaving £15.3m outstanding at the year end.

Since the year end an additional £4.5m has been provided and another incredible £13.3m converted into shares, highlighting the incredible commitment of the directors and other investors, leaving £6.5m currently outstanding, £5m of which is due to Dave King (see below) and £1.5m due to John Bennett.

There is another £2.9m of loans outstanding to a third party, possibly from Close Leasing, which is presumably short-term funding being repaid once the credit card companies release the season ticket cash.

A further £8.8m will be needed for this season and £14.4m for next season and Douglas Park and John Bennet have agreed to provide loan facilities to cover these amounts, which are obviously subject to player trading and how we do in Europe.

Dave King funding

Dave King has provided £16m of funding to the club since he came back in 2015. £11m has been converted into shares and £5m remains outstanding and is due to be repaid to him next year.

It is slightly disappointing that he is charging interest at 8% on the remaining £5m, an annual charge of £400K. However, given everything he has done for the club and the level of funding he has provided in the last 5 years and also when Murray was in charge, it seems churlish to criticise him too much. There may also be tax reasons why interest had to be charged.

Given that interest is being charged, there is a repayment date stated and he did not make the opportunity to convert the loans during the last couple of share issues, it appears that he will be looking for repayment of the £5m, and that it was always the intention for this loan to be part of a short-term funding exercise for it not to be converted into shares.

Improvements

There was £2.1m of fixed asset expenditure, presumably work done on Ibrox and RTC. This highlights that the directors are continuing to invest significantly in the club’s infrastructure (£8.6m over the past 3 years) as well as the playing squad.

Sundry

The club made a claim on its Business Interruption insurance for losses caused by Covid-19 and has received £1.25m, which is excellent as many insurance companies have refused to pay, but it remains doubtful whether there will be any more forthcoming.

Post year-end

The club has continued its spending after the year-end with £15.4m being incurred on players including the signing of Itten and Roofe and presumably Hagi (it was reported that Hagi signed earlier but the amounts do not back this up) and they will appear in the 2021 accounts. However it should be remembered that the amounts spent will be written off over the length of their contracts.

The £15.4m is far higher than I expected, even if it also includes the minimal fees for McLaughlin, Bassey and a loan fee for Zungu, and it will result in another increase in amortisation charges in next year’s accounts.

The future

The losses over the last few years, including the one shown in this year’s accounts, are not a concern as they have been fully funded by our directors/investors and we should continue to be very grateful to them for that.

However this level of funding cannot go on indefinitely. Despite the appearance of new investors (Alan McLeish, Danny McKinlay, Stuart Gibson, Neil Hosie), the well must be running dry soon. It appears that Dave King will be looking for his £5m loan to be repaid and it is unclear whether future loans from Park and Bennett will be real loans or converted to shares.

Financially, it is vital that we win the league this season to give us a better chance of reaching the holy grail of the Champions League and we will need to make at least one big sale of a player.

We do need to continue to get regular European group football and regularly make multi-million profits on player sales to allow us to break even and this is the business model that our directors have put in place.

We know from bitter experience that we need to keep an eye on our financial position and my outlook is slightly more pessimistic than it was 12 months ago, but we looking good on the pitch and have a number of players where we could make large profits.

Although the loss was large, it was fully funded and we’re one good player sale away from breaking even. We just need to keep a careful eye on the finances over the next couple of years.
 
Good summary OP

Why is your outlook more pessimistic than last year given the figures seem to be improving albeit reliant on director loans, is it the point of the well running dry?
 
The reality is we are in a period of planned accelerated growth, we have significantly bridged the revenue gap between us and our rivals and it was always going to require short term losses. The figures have been made worse by COVID and both sides of the OF will have horrific accounts next year.

After that I am confident we will be able to live within our means. We have added enormous value to the squad and will now start to include player sales and reinvestment in the squad as part of our strategy. We also have a very real prospect of CL football next season, the following season the league winners go straight into the group so now is the time to invest.

We are very lucky we have investors that are prepared to bridge the gap, without that we would be years away from realistically challenging, also Gerrard has played a blinder with EL qualification 3 years in a row.
 
Last edited:
Good summary OP

Why is your outlook more pessimistic than last year given the figures seem to be improving albeit reliant on director loans, is it the point of the well running dry?
Thanks.

Last year, it looked like our underlying loss was around £5m, but this has been increased by higher wages and increased spending on players. In addition Dave King has stepped away and there is part of it being the well running dry.

There's also the point that we were being financed by loans that would be converted to shares, but I'm now not so sure that this is the case with all the loans in place.

Nothing too concerning yet, but we just need to keep an eye on it.
 
Thanks.

Last year, it looked like our underlying loss was around £5m, but this has been increased by higher wages and increased spending on players. In addition Dave King has stepped away and there is part of it being the well running dry.

There's also the point that we were being financed by loans that would be converted to shares, but I'm now not so sure that this is the case with all the loans in place.

Nothing too concerning yet, but we just need to keep an eye on it.
I thought the loans were just a continuation of the soft loans converted to equity we had previously albeit from different backers now. Why do you think that has changed and what is the outlay on repayments if that isn't the case? I'm not overly worried as believe we have a squad well worth in excess of £100m but just haven't seen anything to indicate that we are being financed any differently to previous few years.
 
It is slightly disappointing that he is charging interest at 8% on the remaining £5m, an annual charge of £400K.

I stand to be corrected, but I think it was a South African Revenue Services requirement that interest be applied to a loan.
 
Anyone who said that Europe wasn’t important because we need to stop 10 must now realise how wrong that was. Yes, we need to stop 10 and I’m 99.99% we will, but - especially with no fans - European revenue is crucial.
Three years ago the gap in income between the scum and us was 70 million plus. It’s now down to 11 million and their exit from Europe and us qualifying to the knockout phase reduces that much further.
One year in the groups of the CL, irrespective of results, would see a massive shift in the financial power of both clubs.
No complacency, obviously, but the tide is turning.
 
Morelos will have been at Rangers 4 years so I think he might want to try pastures new anyway come the summer 2021 window.

If we can sell him for a sizable amount and use that to fund our summer transfer business while banking the CL money we'll be in good shape.

It is pretty clear though that we have to win the league this season and get the champions path to the UCL.
 
I'm happy to trust those on the board just now.

Any "negatives" that come from the accoutns either last year or this I see as being part of their plan to take us back to where we need to be.

Accelerated growth or losses larger than we might have liked are all offset by a progress to a point where we can normalise for me.

We could have spent 10 years growing at a slower rate with no losses but the bigger picture is that we have to get back to winning things long before that point.

A single player sale could cover the losses. Winning the league and then selling that player is a far better idea if the books can be balanced with that plan.
 
It is slightly disappointing that he is charging interest at 8% on the remaining £5m, an annual charge of £400K.

I stand to be corrected, but I think it was a South African Revenue Services requirement that interest be applied to a loan.
I did say "There may also be tax reasons why interest had to be charged."

However he didn't charge interest on his earlier loans, but they came from New Oasis rather than Laird, and there could be a difference in the way that they need to be treated.
 
Going off at a (slight) tangent here - but weren’t the break-even account of the Tims only achieved because they had sold Tierney. They are more f@&ed financially with their overpriced and expensive wages (shit) squad now and going forward as Rangers excel themselves at home domestically and in Europe.
 
@Bluedell . Did Covid have much of an effect to the period end? I get that 5 matches were BCD but those matches would have been sold out from season tickets. OK, there would have been a small element of on the day and hospitality sales but that would have been minimal and stewarding and policing costs were avoided. Do you have thoughts on how Covid will impact on this season if underlying costs remain the same but there are no additonal gate receipts from cup matches and EL fixtures?

Gate receipts and Hospitality rose 11.6% to £35.7m, despite the Covid-19 impact of playing 5 league games with no crowd and a small proportion of season ticket holders requesting a refund for the missed games.
 
@Bluedell . Did Covid have much of an effect to the period end? I get that 5 matches were BCD but those matches would have been sold out from season tickets. OK, there would have been a small element of on the day and hospitality sales but that would have been minimal and stewarding and policing costs were avoided. Do you have thoughts on how Covid will impact on this season if underlying costs remain the same but there are no additonal gate receipts from cup matches and EL fixtures?

Gate receipts and Hospitality rose 11.6% to £35.7m, despite the Covid-19 impact of playing 5 league games with no crowd and a small proportion of season ticket holders requesting a refund for the missed games.
I don't think Covid had a huge effect on these accounts. You're correct that there would be savings in costs to offset part of the income that we lost plus we got the £1.25m insurance payout.

Not having crowds for the European games this season will have the biggest impact, and the club are saying Covid will have an overall impact of over £10m.
 
I thought the loans were just a continuation of the soft loans converted to equity we had previously albeit from different backers now. Why do you think that has changed and what is the outlay on repayments if that isn't the case? I'm not overly worried as believe we have a squad well worth in excess of £100m but just haven't seen anything to indicate that we are being financed any differently to previous few years.
The Dave King loan of £5m may be repayable as he didn't take the chance to convert it to shares during the last couple of share issues.

We don't know about the Park and Bennett loans that will be needed over the next 12 months or so. I sense a change in the wording on these in the accounts, but I hope you're right.
 
Review of Rangers accounts 2020



Overview

The release of the annual accounts on a Friday evening wasn’t a good sign.

I was concerned when I downloaded them and they were worse than I had expected, showing a headline loss before tax of £17.8m but is it as bad as it seems? Yes and no.
  • No, the loss is funded by the directors/investors who have converted most of their loans into share capital.
  • No, we could have sold players to eliminate the loss if we so desired. We didn’t, unlike other clubs, and we are selling the benefit of that on the pitch.
  • Yes, losses of this level are not sustainable and the financing from the directors/investors will not continue indefinitely which make the require for Champions’ League football and/or regularly selling players for multi-million pound profits a requirement.
What is the loss?

Those who read my review last year may remember that we need to ignore notional interest that is included in the accounts as it is only there for accounting purposes and will never actually be paid.

The loss before tax of £17.8m can therefore be reduced by £1.9m and is actually £15.9m compared to last year’s loss of £8.7m, an increase of £7.2m

Why the increase in the loss?
  • An increase in staff costs of £8.9m
  • A decrease in the profit of sale of players of £2.4m
  • Increased amortisation of the purchase price of players of £1.2m (Kent and Helander)Partly offset by an increase in revenue of £5.8m
Revenue

Revenue increased from £53.2m to £59.0m (+£5.8m), mainly due to our European run. We generated £20.7m which is up £6.4m from the prior year which again highlights how important a run in Europe is to us.

Gate receipts and Hospitality rose 11.6% to £35.7m, despite the Covid-19 impact of playing 5 league games with no crowd and a small proportion of season ticket holders requesting a refund for the missed games.

Staff costs

Staff costs increased by 26% in the year, going from £34m to £43m, which was a result of bringing Gerrard to the club and a significant increase in the quality of the squad.

A 79 % increase over the last 2 years sounds bad but the following should be taken into account:
  • Staff costs as a percentage of revenue at 73.4% is around the same level as it was 2 years ago.
  • The average for the English Championship, for last season was 107% and was 94% and 78% for League 1 and League 2 in the prior year, so it shows that the level we have it is reasonable, albeit based on European income, which isn’t guaranteed.
  • Celtic’s staff costs are 25% higher than ours.
Other operating expenses

Other Operating Expenses (including matchday costs and the costs of maintaining the stadium and RTC) increased from £22m to £23.2m. This is disappointing considering we played 3 less homes games and the previous year’s figure was looked upon as being high due to the additional legal and professional fees of £3.6m, due mainly to the ongoing Sports Direct dispute.

We are not told what this year’s legal fees were, but they may have continued to be high, to allow us to sign the Castore deal.

Reducing Other Operating Expenses may impact the matchday experience for us so there’s a fine line in keeping costs under control and satisfying the fans, but it is an area where they need to keep a careful watch.

Purchase of players

Rangers spent £11m on players during the year. This would have mainly been on Kent and Helander. Given the sums involved, it appears that the purchase of Hagi was didn’t go through in this year’s accounts, despite reports to the contrary.

This also does not include the purchases of Itten and Roofe, which happened after the year-end.

Sale of players

We made a £0.7m profit on the sale of players, compared to £3.1m in the previous year. I assume that Candeias would make up a majority of this year’s profit.

However we need to be able to be making millions each year to sustain a break-even situation in the future. Our model looks to be largely working as we could have sold Morelos for a sum that would have allowed us to break-even, and going forward we may not be able to have the luxury to turn down 8-figure bids.

Retail

Retail income was £3.3m for the year which is the same as last year. However it appears that a majority of this has not been received as there is £2.3m outstanding and the club have commenced legal proceedings to recover it.

The Castore deal does not start until this season and therefore is not reflected in these accounts, and hopefully that will show an area of increase.

Although we are free of Sports Direct and have successfully negotiated a retail deal away from Ashley, it is disappointing to see the legal case is still ongoing and we may have to pay further money to SDI.

Cash

Cash has increased from £1m to £11m but I presume that this is due to the timing of the receipt of directors’ loans. We have £14.9m of debtors which is season ticket cash which is in respect of season tickets that are paid by supporters using deferred payment plans or credit cards so that will be converted into cash.

The credit card companies are passing on the cash over the course of a season to limit their risk. This isn’t an issue as it’s only a short term cashflow problem and it hasn’t prevented us from spending £15m on players after the financial year-end.

Funding

Director and shareholder loans outstanding last year were £11.2m, an additional net £21.8m was provided during the year and £17.7m were converted into shares, leaving £15.3m outstanding at the year end.

Since the year end an additional £4.5m has been provided and another incredible £13.3m converted into shares, highlighting the incredible commitment of the directors and other investors, leaving £6.5m currently outstanding, £5m of which is due to Dave King (see below) and £1.5m due to John Bennett.

There is another £2.9m of loans outstanding to a third party, possibly from Close Leasing, which is presumably short-term funding being repaid once the credit card companies release the season ticket cash.

A further £8.8m will be needed for this season and £14.4m for next season and Douglas Park and John Bennet have agreed to provide loan facilities to cover these amounts, which are obviously subject to player trading and how we do in Europe.

Dave King funding

Dave King has provided £16m of funding to the club since he came back in 2015. £11m has been converted into shares and £5m remains outstanding and is due to be repaid to him next year.

It is slightly disappointing that he is charging interest at 8% on the remaining £5m, an annual charge of £400K. However, given everything he has done for the club and the level of funding he has provided in the last 5 years and also when Murray was in charge, it seems churlish to criticise him too much. There may also be tax reasons why interest had to be charged.

Given that interest is being charged, there is a repayment date stated and he did not make the opportunity to convert the loans during the last couple of share issues, it appears that he will be looking for repayment of the £5m, and that it was always the intention for this loan to be part of a short-term funding exercise for it not to be converted into shares.

Improvements

There was £2.1m of fixed asset expenditure, presumably work done on Ibrox and RTC. This highlights that the directors are continuing to invest significantly in the club’s infrastructure (£8.6m over the past 3 years) as well as the playing squad.

Sundry

The club made a claim on its Business Interruption insurance for losses caused by Covid-19 and has received £1.25m, which is excellent as many insurance companies have refused to pay, but it remains doubtful whether there will be any more forthcoming.

Post year-end

The club has continued its spending after the year-end with £15.4m being incurred on players including the signing of Itten and Roofe and presumably Hagi (it was reported that Hagi signed earlier but the amounts do not back this up) and they will appear in the 2021 accounts. However it should be remembered that the amounts spent will be written off over the length of their contracts.

The £15.4m is far higher than I expected, even if it also includes the minimal fees for McLaughlin, Bassey and a loan fee for Zungu, and it will result in another increase in amortisation charges in next year’s accounts.
Really comprehensive review.

The only thing I would challenge is the future business interruption insurance payments. I work for a big insurance company and have spent months analysing our Covid exposure and the FCA high court test case in Sept came down almost entirely in favor of the policy holders.

Unless the industry is successful in appealing this then Rangers (and other clubs that have it) will almost certainly be due more payouts in regards to this and there is no way we would have a sum insured of only £1.25M.

FCA test case outcome - https://hsfnotes.com/insurance/2020...19-business-interruption-insurance-test-case/

While different conclusions were reached in respect of each wording, the Court found in favour of the FCA on the majority of the key issues, in particular in respect of coverage triggers under most disease and ‘hybrid’ clauses, certain denial of access/public authority clauses, as well as causation and ‘trends’ clauses. The judgment should therefore bring welcome news for a significant number of the thousands of policyholders impacted by COVID-related business interruption losses.
 
Really comprehensive review.

The only thing I would challenge is the future business interruption insurance payments. I work for a big insurance company and have spent months analysing our Covid exposure and the FCA high court test case in Sept came down almost entirely in favor of the policy holders.

Unless the industry is successful in appealing this then Rangers (and other clubs that have it) will almost certainly be due more payouts in regards to this and there is no way we would have a sum insured of only £1.25M.

FCA test case outcome - https://hsfnotes.com/insurance/2020...19-business-interruption-insurance-test-case/

While different conclusions were reached in respect of each wording, the Court found in favour of the FCA on the majority of the key issues, in particular in respect of coverage triggers under most disease and ‘hybrid’ clauses, certain denial of access/public authority clauses, as well as causation and ‘trends’ clauses. The judgment should therefore bring welcome news for a significant number of the thousands of policyholders impacted by COVID-related business interruption losses.
Thanks for this. I did try and read the outcome of the FCA case yesterday but was overcome by legalese, and couldn't really make head nor tail of it. However, as you say, the appeal is still going through the courts, and the decision may end up being watered down.

Yes, our insurance may be for more than £1.25m, but it could be that was the magnitude of our losses for last season.

Will our insurance policy be April-March or could it be linked to our seasons? I presume that any new policies will have the relevant exemptions and I'm not sure whether our policy for this would sill be going or replaced?
 
Really comprehensive review.

The only thing I would challenge is the future business interruption insurance payments. I work for a big insurance company and have spent months analysing our Covid exposure and the FCA high court test case in Sept came down almost entirely in favor of the policy holders.

Unless the industry is successful in appealing this then Rangers (and other clubs that have it) will almost certainly be due more payouts in regards to this and there is no way we would have a sum insured of only £1.25M.

FCA test case outcome - https://hsfnotes.com/insurance/2020...19-business-interruption-insurance-test-case/

While different conclusions were reached in respect of each wording, the Court found in favour of the FCA on the majority of the key issues, in particular in respect of coverage triggers under most disease and ‘hybrid’ clauses, certain denial of access/public authority clauses, as well as causation and ‘trends’ clauses. The judgment should therefore bring welcome news for a significant number of the thousands of policyholders impacted by COVID-related business interruption losses.
Thank you for posting. The high profile winners for this earlier in the year appeared to be the Wimbledon tennis championships. Question. Will they, or any other business for that matter, be able to renew that policy again on the same terms? Or will the insurers simply not underwrite for Covid interruption again or if they do, the costs will be so prohibitive that no business could afford to take it out?
 
Thanks for this. I did try and read the outcome of the FCA case yesterday but was overcome by legalese, and couldn't really make head nor tail of it. However, as you say, the appeal is still going through the courts, and the decision may end up being watered down.

Yes, our insurance may be for more than £1.25m, but it could be that was the magnitude of our losses for last season.

Will our insurance policy be April-March or could it be linked to our seasons? I presume that any new policies will have the relevant exemptions and I'm not sure whether our policy for this would sill be going or replaced?
The appeal was actually heard by the court last week but as usual with this sort of thing it will take a few more weeks to announce the findings but should know before Christmas. The insurance industry is not confident TBH, we had discussions with the FCA to try and settle before the appeal but they were not willing to make the concessions the industry were looking for and were confident enough to let it go to the appeal.

The polices usually run over a 12 month period, ours could start/end at any time but it does make sense that the club would link it to our seasons. As the polices renew Covid exclusions are applied, these exclusions started to get put in during April so if we are doing Apr-Mar then its touch and go if we would have been before or after the exclusion.

That said football clubs are a bit different as they have never reopened from lockdown 1 unlike other businesses that did reopen are were then locked down a 2nd time with the 2nd wave.
 
It is slightly disappointing that he is charging interest at 8% on the remaining £5m, an annual charge of £400K.

I stand to be corrected, but I think it was a South African Revenue Services requirement that interest be applied to a loan.
Really comprehensive review.

The only thing I would challenge is the future business interruption insurance payments. I work for a big insurance company and have spent months analysing our Covid exposure and the FCA high court test case in Sept came down almost entirely in favor of the policy holders.

Unless the industry is successful in appealing this then Rangers (and other clubs that have it) will almost certainly be due more payouts in regards to this and there is no way we would have a sum insured of only £1.25M.

FCA test case outcome - https://hsfnotes.com/insurance/2020...19-business-interruption-insurance-test-case/

While different conclusions were reached in respect of each wording, the Court found in favour of the FCA on the majority of the key issues, in particular in respect of coverage triggers under most disease and ‘hybrid’ clauses, certain denial of access/public authority clauses, as well as causation and ‘trends’ clauses. The judgment should therefore bring welcome news for a significant number of the thousands of policyholders impacted by COVID-related business interruption losses.

so it should on the face of it. Business interruption occurred
 
A lot of restructuring costs, stadium upgrades etc.
Sell Morelos, and we would have drew level on costs.
There lies the problem going forward, do we need to sell say a kamara to buy new players.
The quicker the return to full houses the better.
I think to move forward, its now a minimum requirement to be in the europa group stages.
 
so it should on the face of it. Business interruption occurred
Trying to get financial institutions to pay out is never easy. Banks have dragged their feet for years on PPI and mis sold investments, pension businesses on bad advice. Insurance companies will not want to pay out and will delay as long as possible. If a business fails due to Covid ( and lots in hospitality and travel will ) then the insurers will be left dealing with the receivers which will take years to resolve. The business owners will be left high and dry and the receivers can hoover up with large fees.
 
so it should on the face of it. Business interruption occurred
Its not as simple as that though.

Some business interruption is for non access to your premise due to a 3rd party. The pavilion in Glasgow is a perfect example after the fire up the road from them last year. There is an argument that current business premises that are closed are completely accessible but are just not allowed to trade.

The court ruled in the policy holders favor for that respect. In total it was 21 different policy wording that were ruled on that will cover the vast majority of polices across the UK.
 
Trying to get financial institutions to pay out is never easy. Banks have dragged their feet for years on PPI and mis sold investments, pension businesses on bad advice. Insurance companies will not want to pay out and will delay as long as possible. If a business fails due to Covid ( and lots in hospitality and travel will ) then the insurers will be left dealing with the receivers which will take years to resolve. The business owners will be left high and dry and the receivers can hoover up with large fees.

yeah and no doubt the insurers are happy to drag it out

just like seeing insurance getting a kick to the face
 
My only worry is that we’re going to be reliant on European group stage income in future just to break even.

This was a model I’m sure the current board said that we couldn’t go for again as we previously relied on it under Murray
 
Nice and easy summary to follow Thanks for taking to the time to do so

As I posted in the the other thread when the accounts appeared = short term pain for long term gain hopefully
 
My only worry is that we’re going to be reliant on European group stage income in future just to break even.

This was a model I’m sure the current board said that we couldn’t go for again as we previously relied on it under Murray
What's the alternative of Player trading and Euro money?
 
What's the alternative of Player trading and Euro money?
It isnt palatable. It could only mean cutting the biggest expense: players wages. Do that and you probably forget about progressing in Europe. A real speculate to accumulate scenario. Under Gerrard, Europe has been amazingly good. Looks like he will keep that going this season. Its good that money comes in for points gained in the EL but even getting to this season's last eight probably still doesnt get crowds in the stadium. That is several million lost revenue.
 
My only worry is that we’re going to be reliant on European group stage income in future just to break even.

This was a model I’m sure the current board said that we couldn’t go for again as we previously relied on it under Murray
I was always under the impression that we were run to break even from domestic income under David Murray and Europe was treated as a bonus. Paul Murray confirmed as much to all of us who attended the Grosvenor Hotel meeting in 2014.

Obviously the current climate in no way resembles the early to middle segments of Murray’s tenure. The latter parts though have undoubtedly more exposure to reliance on European income and the parallels with today’s situation have merit.

If we win the league and all the direct benefits come on stream like commercial enhancement due to increased sponsorship etc, etc as well as access to CL monies, it will be interesting to observe how the Club will be run going forward.
 
Thanks Bluedell for the summary.

I would assume the board has made several alternative scenarios that compare short and medium-term financial outcomes. What interests me as to whether this year’s accounts fall within the expected predictions or fall outside by a fair distance and give rise to worry.

It seems to me by not selling Morelos it probably reflects well that the accounts are as anticipated and that the board do not as yet feel there is any concern even in the short term.
 
I was always under the impression that we were run to break even from domestic income under David Murray and Europe was treated as a bonus. Paul Murray confirmed as much to all of us who attended the Grosvenor Hotel meeting in 2014.
I'm not sure that was ever the case. We made a loss most years even after European involvement.

What they used to say was that they budgeted to only have domestic income. What they didn't mention was that the budget showed a huge loss.
 
Morelos will have been at Rangers 4 years so I think he might want to try pastures new anyway come the summer 2021 window.

If we can sell him for a sizable amount and use that to fund our summer transfer business while banking the CL money we'll be in good shape.

It is pretty clear though that we have to win the league this season and get the champions path to the UCL.
We absolutely must win the league this year to get that vital CL money. I just hope Morelos value doesn’t fall further with his lack of goals.
 
I'm not sure that was ever the case. We made a loss most years even after European involvement.

What they used to say was that they budgeted to only have domestic income. What they didn't mention was that the budget showed a huge loss.
Fair enough.

So Paul Murray was being economical with the truth rather than being disingenuous? David Murray has claimed that he never took a penny out of Rangers, I have never believed that. Could he have benefitted from ownership through posting a loss?
 
Fair enough.

So Paul Murray was being economical with the truth rather than being disingenuous? David Murray has claimed that he never took a penny out of Rangers, I have never believed that. Could he have benefitted from ownership through posting a loss?
I don't know what Paul's exact words were but I doubt he lied about it. David Murray wouldn't have benefited by us making a loss, although latterly, when we were transferred out of the Murray Sports group, the tax losses would have been available for use. The main reason we made a loss was to be successful on the park. I could expand further but I don't want the thread to become an SDM bashing, and it's been covered in the past.
 
Back
Top