27 May 2025 18:56:17
Last season we were operating at j70% of turnover for FFP. How do we go about that this year to get better quality players when our squad is expensive?
We must ensure that their spending on player wages, transfers, and agent fees does not exceed approximately £61.8 million to comply with UEFA's regulations.
In the 2023/ 24 season, Rangers' total staff costs were reported at £61.2 million, with first-team wages accounting for £40.6 million. This suggests that the club is currently operating close to the 70% spending cap, highlighting the need for careful financial planning to maintain compliance in the upcoming season
We need a really good window, I am just wondering how we pay within the rules?
27 May 2025 19:47:26
Sell a couple players, still think Raskin or Igamane will move on. Just had a good european run. Amd just cut the wage bill again.
27 May 2025 20:01:49
I'm sure the costs get spread over a 3 year period so if we buy a player for 6m it's on accounts as 2m for 3 years but we will need to increase turnover and sell a igaman or raskin or dio.
27 May 2025 20:08:45
The brown envelopes must have done the job then as Uefa would be coming down on us like a ton of bricks without them.
27 May 2025 20:30:14
If you read everything since 23/24 then we have city our wage bill by a huge amount so the turnover will be lower. that was before the OOC players left and the young lads were released. if we sell players then it will probably be after the close off date for our accounts so any fees and salary decreases won't come in to next year.
oh and we are buying players on lower wages anyway as we paid far too much in the past. new owners won't change that IMO initially anyway.
27 May 2025 20:50:53
Listen we will sell igamane, Raskin, Diomande and more if each of their individual valuations are met or slightly exceeded.
Every single player at Ibrox is up for sale every single window.
Say we sell dio and igamane, if Raskin wants to stay we keep him but we would probably ask him to accept the move like with Hutton as example.
27 May 2025 20:53:59
Sorry cut not city.
27 May 2025 21:09:28
Their is a number of ways to do this going forward but it was already started last year
We dropped wage bill by around 6 Million pounds
If we actually get into champions league this generates more money which I think allows us to invest more into the squad
The sale of players will definitely play a part of funding a new squad
Possibly new sponsorship deals when takeover is complete
Commercial income
Ticket sales
Investing in the academy which can generate future fees when we sell players on
Which I heard and EHL also said they are going to give us the state of an art training centre loads of changes coming to it upgrades etc
Also structuring deals on players in instalments instead of paying out all at once etc
Their is numerous ways we will navigate and play within the rules don't think the 49ers will have to much trouble knowing their way around it.
27 May 2025 21:19:43
Meeting UEFA Cost Control measures for this year isn't an issue and was confirmed by PS during the recent fan forum.
Cashflow was a concern, hence the decision to use a finance firm to bring forward future income.
Accounting period runs to 30th June, so player trading and any new income streams will impact the next reporting period.
Also, the process to spread the cost of purchases over the duration of contracts isn't standard practice - it's an option and one that has just as many negatives as positives.
27 May 2025 21:30:15
Stig can you tell us we signed a player on toe three four year deal and paid it up immediately.
27 May 2025 22:20:11
EHL I think everyone gets confused by the fact all clubs write down the value of players over the contract period (amortisation) as being spreading payments over the period of the contract.
27 May 2025 22:35:02
Angus, that's the point I'm trying to make - not all clubs use the amortisation process to account for the cost of purchasing a player - it's an option, and one that has just as many negative impacts as positives.
27 May 2025 22:47:27
John, as far as I'm concerned payments are staggered structured in payments.
I was trying to give an answer to the OP on how we can get round the FFP as he had asked?
Did I say something wrong like?
27 May 2025 23:07:18
EHL for what I've read and heard it sounds like Rangers do this more often than not?
Or is that not true?
Let's say Rangers sign a player for £10 million on a 5-year contract.
Instead of recording the full £10 million as a cost in year one, the club amortises the fee at:
£10 million ÷ 5 years = £2 million per year
So each year, Rangers would report £2 million as an expense on their books for that player.
I was trying to give examples to the OP question
Where we can use money from player sales
Champs league if we get through generates more money so does that mean we can spend a little more as we're making more if we qualify for group stages?
Also the potential of better commercial revenue when takeover is complete if we're selling more merchandise like over seas?
Also am I right in saying we have managed to reduce the wage bill by around 6 million pounds?
And when the 49ers takeover we could end up with better more lucrative sponsorship deals
Does all this not come into it?
Or am I away ahead of myself here?
28 May 2025 07:43:20
Stig, you are correct - I was just pointing out that this is optional and has a down side.
The preferred method is to account for the payments in the period they are made - which the majority of well run clubs do.
28 May 2025 07:48:41
Angus
Logic doesn't add up, if we lower wage bill which a cost, this will affect turnover by increasing it.
28 May 2025 08:08:12
Ah the minefield that is ffp…… ?.
28 May 2025 08:26:26
EHL sorry but would we then spread the payments but not write down the players value over the contract. so is the players contract value written off at start or end as it needs to equalise in balance sheet. I understood that clubs are willing to schedule payments but don't always. however can't then understand how the players value would be written down if not over the contract period.
28 May 2025 08:29:30
MBW sorry used wrong word in my haste I meant overheads as turnover is the revenue we would get, other side of the balance sheet. Lowering or increasing the wages changes the gap (the target 70%) between the two figures (revenue/ overheads) . hope that makes sense.
28 May 2025 09:20:48
Angus, I think we're all guilty of trying to simplify and understand a set of reporting requirements that are hugely complex.
The reporting process for UEFA isn't a cut and paste from our annual accounts submission - therefore how we treat intangible assets in our annual accounts doesn't need to be mirrored in our Uefa submission.
Also, what we generally hear in the media around accounting processes for football teams come from the EPL who have a completely different set of sustainability requirements.
In simple form, if we buy a player for £10m and it's all paid upfront with no add ons (hypothetical) then we can decide from a UEFA Cost Control reporting perspective to log the spend in the period it happened or to spread the cost across the contract (i. e. £2m per year for the 5 year deal) .
Well run clubs tend to report as the funds are paid within the Uefa submission - clubs operating close to the Cost Control target may look to spread the costs, however this has a negative impact on future submissions, especially if the player is sold (which is when the 'pure' profit chat comes in to play) .
28 May 2025 16:12:03
Cheers EHL. That makes a lot of sense.