Rangers Finances


Use our rumours form to send us rangers transfer rumours.

(single word yields best result)

Correct Score Competition Entry

21 May 2017 18:04:31
I take it we have no shirt sponsor for start of the season?

Agree5 Disagree2

21 May 2017 15:10:09
A lot being said about former players leaving for nothing. It works both ways, how you all feel about rangers walking away from all debts? Lots of small businesses took big hits from rangers not paying them money and going into liquidation.

Agree4 Disagree5

22 May 2017 06:15:26
Chic, perhaps you are unaware but the smaller debts were all paid off by individual rangers fans and supporters groups. These groups had no obligation to do so but felt it a moral responsibility. Should have been rangers yes, but keeping on spinning the poor wee businesses line needs to stop.

22 May 2017 08:56:32
Chic go have a moan at all the other companies that go bust and don't pay their debts, start up a new company and do it again and again and again. It's not a 1 off rangers doing it, it's very common.

18 May 2017 18:13:55
I think imo that if the club set up a membership club like Barcelona this could generate more transfer income - ringfence that money for new signings also give fans the chance to vote for a player the club should go after just an idea.

Agree8 Disagree10

19 May 2017 09:57:29

This is the same idea that I mentioned previously on here. I think its a great idea to do something like this. There are bound to be legalities regarding e. g. the raised cash being taxable income for the club, or that some part of this would have to be classed as a charitable donation? I'm sure that would be able to be ironed out.

Another poster this morning mentioned that we should have some sort of tab on the rfc official site, detailing how much was raised. I'd also like to see things like new kit designs posted on the site where fans could vote on the final designs - obviously once the Ashley fiasco is out the way. The club must be presented with a collection of designs prior to making the final decision. Also would encourage more sales of that kit. let's be honest if they roll out something that's rotten, chances are your not going to reach your maximum target audience to buy the kit. IMO the kits haven't been great since 2000 NTL one.

This would all give more fans a say in our club. Why not.

16 May 2017 20:22:51
right keep reading that we're skint can't afford this or that, has anyone from the club actually said we're skint? i understand it will be free's and small sums likely £1M or less because that's sensible and sustainable plus the club doesn't have much in revenue but don't think we're skint, pretty sure we're in the best shape financially that we have been in since relegation to the bottom. i'm saying this because it was reported we were not running at a loss this year. just want to know all your thoughts?

Agree5 Disagree4

16 May 2017 21:47:38
Ogbear the reports you refer to were the spin put on the unaudited accounts released in March. They did indeed show that we continue to operate at a loss and are dependent on loans from board members. The spin in the press focused on one part of the footballing business which showed a profit, and that only added up because it counted a loan as "income". So, yes, we are operating at a loss. Whether you call that skint or not is a matter of semantics only. The key thing is we spend more than we bring in, which is not sustainable.

17 May 2017 09:34:08
We are technically skint. However the board have a gamble they can take this year, give pedro say £5mil to spend (not including wages) and if we make it to just the 3rd round we can make around £4-4.8mil back in Prize and tickets (Mainly tickets) meaning we could mount some sort of challenge for 1st on 200k spending. If we get to the group stages we could bring in around £10mil.

17 May 2017 18:10:05
What about UEFA's FFP rules?

18 May 2017 08:59:21
What about them Pauline?

18 May 2017 10:55:54
The UEFA FFP rules state: "To be exact, clubs can spend up to €5million more than they earn per assessment period (three years) . However it can exceed this level to a certain limit, if it is entirely covered by a direct contribution/ payment from the club owner (s) or a related party. This prevents the build-up of unsustainable debt. "

Unfortunately for us, "loans" from the club owners don't count as a "direct contribution / payment". So they are not exempt from the €5million and instead count as "debt".

Therefore, since all the outstanding loans we have had from board members (and others) over the last 3 years far exceed the permitted €5million limit, I can't see how we won't face questions from UEFA next year, with potential measures and sanctions unless we get our finances in order.

Unless we can demonstrate that we have a convincing and solid business plan that would bring us to a 'break even' state, those sanctions could include exclusion from UEFA competitions. It's happened to other clubs.

The reason I posted this in response to your post onlyshowaround is that even your optimistic scenario has us making an overall loss if we reach the 3rd round. And that's just a loss on the transfer money. The £5million injection you propose doesn't even touch the rest of the business losses, which would simply continue under your proposal.

As I said, we have an unsustainable business model.

18 May 2017 13:15:31
Yes Pauline, next year it would come into question. We have no idea what the business plan is as fans, it could be that the board intend to write off the loans in exchange for shares when they become available (unsure if this is a possibility) . Pauline you might want to check exactly how much the loans equal too, we've paid off all other loans and only have loans to the current board. My optimistic scenario is based upon having spent £5mil on player, this might not happen and we could end up getting in £3mil profit, meaning all that would need dealt with is the outstanding loans next year.

18 May 2017 16:11:30
Onlyshowaround, I don't think I'm saying anything remotely controversial, just stating facts. I can see you're doing your best to ignore them, but let me explain once again.

I have already checked how much the outstanding loans amount to. You can too, they're easily found in the various accounts we've published over the past few years.

The last figure I recall was £16million - and that's only the loans from the board, not from other sources of external finance (remember the Hong Kong guys we borrowed from to pay off Ashley his £5mill? )

You are correct that if these loans were written off then they would be classed as investment ("direct contribution" in UEFA's terms) and we'd be ok for FFP. But how likely is that? If the board wanted to simply give their money to the club they could have done that in the first place. But they didn't. They gave us loans.

Equally, yes if the loans were converted to equity that would be fine for FFP purposes. But the problem with that is that the board have failed twice before to get shareholder support to do that. So it's hardly a reliable business plan. In fact it's a pipe dream. Ashley and the Easdales won't vote to dilute their shareholding in favour of King.

So although you say your plan would mean that "all that would need dealt with is the outstanding loans next year", you haven't provided any realistic way that will actually happen.

So next year we will be in the same position we are in now - having spent far above what we bring in over the 3 year period that is relevant for UEFA.

So my question remains, if/ when UEFA come knocking and asking how we plan to break even, what are we going to tell them?

18 May 2017 17:00:16
Pauline, I wasn't disagreeing/ arguing/ other with you at all nor did I say anything about being controversial. Personal I don't know the loan debt off by heart, I was under the impression it was more around the £8mil area.

When i was talking about the board and their loans I meant they might write them off for now, under the circumstances that when shares are made available they get theirs first.

I do agree though if things do not change then we may have an issue on our hands, however I only know of 2 teams UEFA have punished so far.

19 May 2017 08:52:16
No worries onlyshow, sorry for getting a bit tetchy there. I just get sick fed up with fans saying let's spend in the transfer market so we can get into Europe and make money. It simply doesn't work like that when the club overall is still reliant on directors loans, i. e. debt.

(And note this still applies even with King's latest salesman punt that the season ticket money will go towards improving the team. Fair enough Mr King, but where will the money come from to run the rest of the club (players wages, staff wages, ibrox maintenance, overheads, external contractual obligations, all the usual bills and running costs? )

As for only "2 teams" so far being taken to task by UEFA with regard to FFP, where did you get that from, Eddie down the pub? A quick search on UEFA's own website and you'll be able to easily verify the following quotes:

"Non-compliance with the regulations does not mean that a club will be excluded automatically, but there will be no exceptions. "

"The UEFA club licensing system was introduced in the 2003/ 04 season. Since then 53 clubs on 57 separate occasions, which have directly sportingly qualified for either the UEFA Champions League or UEFA Europa League were not admitted because they did not fulfil the licensing or financial fair play criteria. Financial fair play has been introduced and added to the licensing criteria in 2011. Since then 6 clubs have been denied access to the UEFA competitions because they have not paid wages to players or fees to other clubs for transfers and 1 club has been excluded from UEFA competitions due to a failure to comply with break-even requirements. "

So that's 54 clubs denied access to UEFA competitions since 2003 due to not fulfilling the licensing or FFP criteria or failure to comply with break-even requirements.

"In addition the CFCB have decided in numerous cases that the objectives of FFP can be best achieved by taking a rehabilitative approach rather than a punitive approach. This has led to the conclusion of settlement agreements between a club and the CFCB, combining certain financial contributions with numerous restrictive conditions, which provide a roadmap for clubs to reach break-even in the foreseeable future. "

In sum, FFP is a very real threat to any prospect of us relying on European income.

So I ask once again, what's the business plan for breaking even in the foreseeable future? If we can't convince UEFA of that, there's a very real possibility that we will be denied access to their competitions.

19 May 2017 10:01:39
FFP rules are based on profit and loss statement and are based on enforcing clubs to not run deficits. Loans are balance sheet items and don't hit the p&l statement so your talking tripe Pauline.

19 May 2017 11:18:52
Papabear ten out of ten for head in the sand delusion buddy. Sure, clubs are allowed to run up millions in debt to creditors and it won't count as deficit. Back to sleep bud, sorry to have disturbed you.

19 May 2017 11:47:28
Not delusion, simple facts. Ffp assesses p&l. Debts are serviceable if clubs run profits. Interest on the loans would hit p&l but they are 0% loans. I don't make up the rules but unlike urself I've interpreted it correctly. If a club runs a loss and the club has the investment from an owner to offset it up-to 5mil then that's fine but they don't consider loans as part of losses.

19 May 2017 12:48:09
Loans don't count as investment Papabear. Yes a certain amount of debt is allowed, it's normal for clubs and businesses generally to operate with credit arrangements of course. And yes you're right that UEFA look to see that debts are serviceable. But what they mean by 'serviceable' is a 'break even' model. A certain amount of "direct contribution" is allowed to count towards breaking even, but that means actual investment. Not loans, however 'soft' they may be, that go towards the working capital needed for the day to day running of the club, to pay players wages etc. We don't bring in enough cash to pay those normal running costs. We are running at a loss way beyond what UEFA allows. Our directors give us loans to bail us out on a regular basis. To suggest that those loans are excluded from the 'break even' requirement is just ludicrous wishful thinking. That would open up all sorts of financial jiggery pokery for any club to take advantage of, which would run a coach and horses through the whole purpose of the FFP rules. We have a problem Papabear, but don't let it worry you.

19 May 2017 13:31:10
Did I say they count as investment? U seem to be getting annoyed that your view is proven wrong. We're all bears here and I'm just correcting your viewpoint so that u stop spreading false information which other bears might believe u by. I'll start again and hopefully u follow the logic. Ffp concerns itself with a clubs earnings. Earnings are per the p&l and is the bottom figure profit or loss for the company. UEFA as part of ffp do not want clubs operating unsustainable losses. Rangers received loans, this increases cash on the balance sheet with double entry being a non current liability, also on the balance sheet. UEFA do not look at the balance sheet when deciding if a club meets it's ffp criteria, only that it's earnings are sustainable I. e. break even, profits or a small manageable loss. Rangers have shown over last couple of years a favourable trend in its p&l as well just as a side note which UEFA look favourably on. Hopefully u follow and understand this now but don't concern urself with us getting chucked out Europe as I don't believe that'll happen.

19 May 2017 16:29:33
Papabear your cuckoo logic and skewed interpretation of the rules is hilarious, it almost sounds convincing.

A simple thought experiment.

Bill Gates takes a sudden interest in soccer. He decides he wants to win the Champions League. He buys a club with the intention of spending a billion pounds to bring in the world's best players, manager and coaching team. Someone says to him, "Hold on Mr Gates, you can't just buy European cups you know, there's the FFP rules. " "No problem, " says Gates, "I'll simply loan the money to my club with 0% interest. That way it won't show up on the balance sheet that UEFA are interested in. " "But Mr Gates, all that transfer money, and player and staff wages will cost way more than we bring in from TV money, league prizes, merchandise and ticket sales. I don't think that's allowed. " "Don't worry sunshine, " says Gates, "it's just a soft loan I'm giving the club. That doesn't count. " "Ah I see, Mr Gates. Bingo. Sshh, don't tell the Russian mafia this clever trick or we might have competition. You're so clever Gates, what a loophole! So we can actually spend any amount we like as long as the source is a soft loan? You're so rich, there's nothing stopping us now! "

That's the last I'll say on the matter. Others can make up their minds whether it's me or you who's spreading misinformation Papabear.

19 May 2017 18:55:55
Hahaha! I'll retort your thought experiment and then call it a night on this debate. The reason why rich people can't just invest billions is cause ordinarily the investment either through capital contribution or loan would normally be spent on transfer fees and wages. This would massively increase the expenses on the p&l well above revenues since u now have players earning loads. This would put the club in a loss making position (5m of which u correctly at one point above stated is covered by investment) . So Gates can't invest all he likes cause it would result in huge losses for the club if they spend that money. That's what ffp captures.

19 May 2017 21:38:41
I prefer Papa bears logic🖒

19 May 2017 21:54:53
If you get to the group stages you'll earn approximately £5m.

20 May 2017 13:38:07
I prefer Papabear's logic too, it would work very nicely for us if it had any grounding in reality.

What he's saying essentially is that soft loans don't count for FFP purposes unless they're spent on transfers and fees. As I said, that's just cuckoo. There is no difference between using loans to buy players ad using loans to pay back office staff and pay bills. The simple fact is that our club would have chalked up around £16million extra losses over the past 3 years had it not been for soft loans. That means we've spent at least £16million more on running the club than we could have done if we were breaking even. That's relevant to FFP, whatever way you try to artifically allocate the spending. Any other clever twisted logic is just fanciful wishful thinking.

Moreover Papabear you said that debts are allowed as long as they are 'serviceable'. But there is no evidence that our debts are serviceable, despite the positive picture that the unaudited (yes unaudited) accounts try to paint (which you seem to have swallowed whole) . We haven't paid back a penny of those debts yet and in fact we keep borrowing more every year just to meet the running costs of the club.

Anyway, I'm sure you will stick to your version of reality so this is definitely my last post on it. As you say, we are all bears and I only wish your version of reality was true, but sadly for us it's not.

20 May 2017 17:11:07
But that's just not true Pauline. loans under no circumstance AT ALL are considered income through p&l. EVER. The loans are a credit to non-current liabilities and a debit to cash ON THE BALANCE SHEET. The cash in our cash account will have covered our expenses as the incur as double entry is debit p&l and credit balance sheet cash. The loan has no impact at all on our profit or loss for the year which ffp is based on. I'm afraid your not in touch with reality and clearly don't work in finance like I do. As I've said, chill out! It's fine for now as things stand. And for the love of god stop thinking loans hit the p&l!

12 May 2017 23:59:09
BEARS! There is huge investment coming! And Murray is involved with investors from Dubai.
King must talk to the fans and let us know that their is a promising future.
He may be holding back as nothing is confirmed ad with the Sports Direct Deal but all is getting sorted in OUR favour and its maybe the crossing of t's and dotting of i's regarding the merchandise deal that has to be done before Murray etc is proposed.
I'm not sure how I feel about him coming back but I do truly think that he is ashamed about his part in OUR demise!

But again a huge investment on horizon in my mind its not going to be what we need to win lge nxt yr but the Transfer budget prob not this summer and Jan is a cap window but money will be available!

The FACT we signed Caixinha from Dubai WAS because the consortium wanted him AND why would King sanction a nest half a million to for so when Musty and Clues cost nothing and I think King would have went down thus route if no investment or the investors did not have his ear as this will happen doing and the investors are already having a say in decisions albeit with no current involvement but whether I want or anybody else wants Murray back he is coming!

Agree2 Disagree9

13 May 2017 05:56:27
it really is embarassing getting excited over 500,000 for a manager.

stop filling our more gullable fans heads with hoo haa nonsene.

I would welcome him back if he had the cash or backing to lead us.

we did not complain when we he managed to unfairly put us ahead of the rest by spending what we didn't have, now he can put it right. however he would be crazy to join us financially we are a sinking ship. but that won't take away we are the worlds most successful club with the best fans.

time to calm down and do what we can with what we have and stop wiriting puff the magic dragon stories on this

13 May 2017 10:52:52
Just out of curiosity OP. If - and this is highly likely - the Supreme Court rules that David Murray used EBTs illegally would you still want him back at Ibrox?

14 May 2017 16:15:36
Andy1872 - Pedro managed in Qatar not Dubai - big difference pal.

19 May 2017 12:23:39
big but if murray is found guilty he would never pass a fit and proper persons test to take us over again.

but if none of that mattered i'd take him back in a heartbeat if he has money.

too many fans looking fr a sugar daddy but this won't happen.

and i wish our own fans would refer to us as a sinking ship.

this is our first year back up and things will only get better and better

08 May 2017 21:04:19
Rumours doing the rounds on twitter that there is a bit of good news to be announced soon. It has something to do with court case and charles green. No idea what about tho.

Agree6 Disagree10

09 May 2017 22:04:52
Guessing it's the fee you'll receive for losing your brightest prospect to Chelsea.

09 May 2017 22:45:11
yip heard the good news Charles Green was coming back with a new consortium to lead a share issue.

He's said it was a pleasure handing out cups off tea to the fans who helped buy his french Vineyard with your previous generosity.

10 May 2017 08:56:03
ABHABH1, That would be good news to be fair. The young boy wanted to go and we got 500k upfront and potentially more on top of that.

benny, wrong oh so wrong. It's actually Ronald Mcdonald.

12 May 2017 16:33:05
Onlyshowaround. it is my belief that the
£500,000 is a development fee and that no sell on fee can be part of the deal as it is not a transfer per se maybe Ed could clarify.

14 May 2017 08:45:00
onlyshowaround £500k as a development fee is the absolute maximum we will receive and we will be lucky to get that. There will be no fees after that

15 May 2017 10:16:56
From what I have heard it was 500k to keep us from talking to him and getting him to stay. The potentially more is money from targets/ milestones reached.

16 May 2017 19:55:00
500,000 to stop you talking to your own player, who you have been discussing a new contract with for over six month's ? The money is compensation for his training , how could you possibly get a sell on fee for a player who is too young to sign a pro contract, when he was with you?

05 May 2017 16:56:19
Does anyone know if there's any news on a new Rangers kit for next season or does it depend on the Ashley case at court that's coming up soon.

Agree0 Disagree5

04 May 2017 11:43:20
In light of our current merchandise revenue streams being clogged by Mike Ashley, what would you guys think about a front loaded scheme where fans could buy a full kit (say £70) by making a donation to the club until the situation with Ashley was cleared up/ finished.

I don't fully know the legalities of such a scheme, only really exploring options so we can compete.

Being a kid born in the late 70's, I mind Star Wars figures were in short supply back then but you could buy a certificate that you could then return to the store and redeem your purchase when in stock.

As fans would you be willing to front load your cash receiving a certificate to redeem, all the while supplying the club with a cash injection to help facilitate a competitive squad. We are looking to directors to provide further soft loans to facilitate but could this be a further help? Any thoughts or ideas?

Agree4 Disagree5

04 May 2017 15:50:55
Tried to mention this a couple of weeks ago think this kind of idea is the only way forward for our club. I would be quite happy giving £50 every year until the fat ones dodgy deal is over

04 May 2017 16:06:44
I would imagine Ashley has foreseen this kind of idea and had his legal team counter the chances of it in the official agreement.

04 May 2017 18:56:52
Ashley, Puma and 32red would have us in court in a flash. The change left over from the kit sales after deducting the legal costs wouldn't fund much in the way of transfers unfortunately.

05 May 2017 21:40:55
Airus I thought about the excactly the same thing and we SHOULD do this. This is poss an idea that could really help the Club as long as fans are up for waiting. Ashley may even see the amount that coukd be generated and this may appeal ti him and help with a change for the better in this diabolical merchandise deal!

Pauline I think if the purchase form was worded correctly then legally it could work ie Pay £50 now and be 1st in line to receive the 2022-23 Rangers Top! It seems such a long time to wait but this cash injection would help. Dunno if it could Bro done BUT someone MUST propose such an idea! Thoughts Bears.

06 May 2017 08:05:12
Andy. agree in pricipal. there must be a way of getting round this. but to get round it, ashley would have us in court. king said he hoped he could give go ahead to purchase strips this, so thinking there could be movement somewhere. pauline i have a question. why do sports direct board not tell ashley to back down? he is bringing negative publicity to the company through his great deal he got through green. why don't they say, go 50/ 50 and repair the damage s/ p/ d have went through.

06 May 2017 23:22:16
Laudrup, I have no insider knowledge of sports direct but why would they want MA to 'back down'? They have a watertight legal contract. Reputational damage? I think that only applies among our fans, do you honestly think anyone else cares about the details of a retail deal between SD and Rangers? 99.9% of the population would still go to SD to get cheap school trainers for their kids even if MA turned the screw and made things even worse for us. I guess that's why SD will continue to go along with him.

07 May 2017 11:02:36
Pauline. spd are never out the headlines, for the wrong reasons. i would be a liar if i said i have never bought out of there, but i am truthful in saying i haven't bought anything in 3 years out of there. its noyhing to do with school shoes on cheap. this is gers merchandise, what company dosent want to make money? exactley, so why don't they come to an even split and both parties make a bucket full? i will tell you what it is, one man being stubborn. spd couldn't keep up with the demand when gers board give green light. point being, why make pennies when you can make pounds.

07 May 2017 12:35:24
Laudrup they are making plenty of pounds. Maybe they like getting in the headlines, even if for bad reasons, as it increases awareness of the brand. Yes they lose the spending power of our fans, but maybe the customers they gain elsewhere more than makes up for that. It would be interesting to look at the SD accounts to see if their spat with us has had any effect on their bottom line. I would wager that their profits have increased enormously over the past few years, so I doubt they are concerned about the rangers customer base. Their overall business strategy is clearly working very well

09 May 2017 18:20:27
Admin 2 would get rid of Ashley. All contracts terminate on insolvency. just a thought.

10 May 2017 22:28:37
Admin 2 wouldn't get rid of him. Only Liquidation 2 would achieve that as it would wipe out the company with which he has the contract. If the company survives then so does the Ashley deal.

14 May 2017 15:42:05
We couldn't even raise funds to save the club and you think giving 50 a year will bring in transfers? Lol u lot need to get real honestly.

18 May 2017 12:28:15
i love my club i'd pay over the odds for a strip that isn't money going to ashley

02 May 2017 11:21:37
No investors are coming in stop dreaming for a sugar daddy I doubt the rumours are true with Mike Ashley hanging around .

Agree12 Disagree3

01 May 2017 11:30:28
Players will simply get a percentage of their Transfer Fee an example would be O'halloran going for £300k would get £50-80k from that due to loss in earnings.
I just hope that players like him Halliday Forrester etc want 1st team football and are prepared to go.
Read that out of 26 players 13! Are contracted till 2019 and 6 more longer!

Agree1 Disagree2

01 May 2017 14:36:03
The contracts are a total joke everybody we signed it the championship should have been two years deals saying get us promoted then they have a season to prove if the can cope in top league if we did that then most of them would be out of contract this summer. Things like giving Halliday and holt another 3year deal just 6months or so after they signed there first contract is absolutely ridiculous when alll they did was play well in the championship and forrister come in on loan did ok so say to him have another one year deal but once again a whopping 3year deal then kiernen signed a new deal we were trying to get waghorn on a new one aswell and yet warbs used to say we want to be winning the title and getting into champions league what a joke how the hell did he think that was going to happen with this lot playing!


Rangers Finances 2

Rangers Finances 3

Log In or Register to post

Remember me

Forgot Pass