Rangers Finances

17 Jan 2025 12:10:20
Any large bids come in for any of our players,100% boards gona take it. Let's face reality here. We're skint and need a cash injection.

16 Jan 2025 12:25:33
Great to see four lads finally reporting dowell and matondo told to find a new club

2.4 million a year in wages.

Add in Lawrence on a million excellent saving reinvest half still a good saving.

16 Jan 2025 15:53:38
100% John.

16 Jan 2025 23:04:48
I had high hopes for Matondo when he joined but I didn't work out. Maybe include a sell on incase he does turn good. But yes we need the savings to reinvest in players that will impact our results.

11 Jan 2025 11:12:44
Can someone clear up the Tillman debate?

Did we get a fee for him not siand was it reported in our financial results?

Rangers Review also claiming we could be inline for £3.5m if he signs again for Bayern.

Nonsense or facts?

11 Jan 2025 14:52:36
Apparently bayern have first option to buy him back and psv value him at 35m hence the 3.5m we'd get i think bayern renamed on a deal for us to get an option on tillman so the 1.2m we got initially and the 10% sell on seem to be a sweetener for backing out of the deal we had.

11 Jan 2025 16:37:28
OWS the buy back amount was in the contract when PSV bought him. I wonder if the 10% only applies if the buy back is actioned.

11 Jan 2025 23:43:58
Ows the 1.2 we got initially wasn’t in the accounts to my knowledge which isn’t a lot 😂 when it comes to accounts.

12 Jan 2025 08:15:56
Storm it will be there as it would be illegal not to. I think the consensus from our forum of amateur accountants was that things aren't itemised individually and it would be difficult to know where it was. it isn't really a transfer fee although it may still be in the 23/ 24 figure as that.

13 Jan 2025 15:14:30
Angus it should be in operating costs.

13 Jan 2025 16:12:10
cheers John I thought you would know but didn't want to assume or ask. it seems the sensible place for it to be.

13 Jan 2025 20:01:43
Angus great way to cover he the finer detail with out breaching requirements.

15 Jan 2025 05:35:29
1.2 million going missing from the accounts isn't a lot?

16 Jan 2025 17:38:10
So no one knows if it was in accounts so it could all be bs.

07 Jan 2025 21:08:05
Can anyone confirm or show me proof of the malik Tillman money we got for the cancelled loan fee? As after a look at the accounts I couldn't see it after seeing it fly around X is this another case of the board duping us?

07 Jan 2025 22:32:52
what were you looking at it under? It wouldn't just say Tillman compensation money.

08 Jan 2025 11:38:47
I read on this site 1m was the amount.

08 Jan 2025 12:42:02
Made over 2m for Bayern breaking the deal, 1m plus 10% of his next transfer fee.

08 Jan 2025 12:51:48
that was what the press were saying as well. Not necessarily the truth with regard to amounts but I wouldn't even know her to start looking in accounts for it in right place. OP obviously an accountant as he wasnt able to find it so hoped he would help an ordinary fan understand but no response as yet.

08 Jan 2025 14:05:54
It won’t be itemised in accounts.

08 Jan 2025 14:50:58
I know John and that was my point originally in that the OP wouldn't know where to look and even if he did he wouldn't be able to see it.

09 Jan 2025 23:18:07
What were the other cases of the board dumping us?

10 Jan 2025 00:18:51
Duping us.

11 Jan 2025 12:08:14
now in press saying if Bayern take up their £35M buyback we will be due 10% of that. so if the truth then whoever agreed the original contract got quite a bit right.

11 Jan 2025 12:42:09
Angus that would be Ross Wilson, if this is true, he mugged Bayern.

11 Jan 2025 14:53:52
Rw also mugged us with many of his decisions john.

11 Jan 2025 23:45:11
So it can’t be proven that we got any money for Tillman then? We are only going by reports in papers that we don’t trust 👌.

12 Jan 2025 22:20:05
it was in Rangers review and on Sky news so not just papers we down trust. In German and Dutch sites it also reports that Bayern had the same cancellation Claus eon Tillman when they loaned him to PSV with option to buy. Do you believe any good news stories about Rangers ever.

13 Jan 2025 15:16:20
One Walter your opinion, what about deals that made us multiple millions.

13 Jan 2025 16:13:47
no-one gets every decision right and especially on transfers. I think the quoted figure is 40%. I think Asathor mentioned wage structure so either RW was working within the confines of our wage structure when he was here.

13 Jan 2025 20:53:57
It will be in the accounts somewhere and could be hidden. however it doesn't have to be itemised on your public accounts. "large payments in" can usually be found by comparing previous depreciation to current depreciation. A higher than expected depreciation means they are half hiding it as with large payments companies legally can immediately put it down to depreciation on other assets and not declare it so therefore isn't an "income". Haven't looked at the accounts but do work with large accounts on the daily, if the depreciation figure seems off it could be that.

15 Jan 2025 05:37:27
Some of the contracts Ross Wilson constructed cost us millions. John Lundstram, Ryan Kent, Kamar Roofe, Connor Goldson all getting big bonuses for reaching Europa league final.

15 Jan 2025 17:54:56
Yep and we made millions getting to Seville, lam biggest problem was gerrard in the main supported these very large bonuses as no one at rangers expected us to get to European final.

16 Jan 2025 17:39:11
Yeah because rangers review and sky get everything right all the time 🙄.

06 Jan 2025 12:31:52
Has anyone heard anything about the club being put up for sale? Probably rubbish but maybe what the ceo announcement is.

06 Jan 2025 18:01:32
What aspect? Multiple share holdings as rangers are a public company.

Rangers cannot simply be put up for sale.

07 Jan 2025 20:12:24
Thanks asa for your Common sense your reply shut the poster down in there tracks.

06 Jan 2025 11:58:23
given the revelation that King is on 10k a week . How much is Lowry, Lovelace and Devine on? King regularly features in the B Team and only yesterday did he get his boots on for First Team . I raise the question how much is the B team costing us. is it sustainable because none of the kids are getting a chance. Bear in Mind yesterday we had Souter, Balogen, Butland, Tav and Lawrence out and King only got on due to injury to Sterling . I am guessing another CB will come in and King won't get a look in save for the Suspension Of Propper . Are we getting value for money from the B tEAM?

31 Dec 2024 02:09:59
It is absolutley torture for us fans and has been for so long.
We have thrown everything away with a 3rd rate board making a pigs ear of the club. Who have benefited during this horrid spell?
Answer is simple the board. Enjoying 6-7% returns on their investments or in Dave Kings case 14%.

What have had us fans got in return? Zero. Garbage product and a transfer of cash from all our bank accounts into King Letham and because accounts. They will be all enjoying nice food and wine this year and beyond.
The board are so dumb. we win the league then tell Gerard to reduce budget and failed to build on that one bit of success we had in 15 odd years. It really is a rubbish show.
I am hoping tue sports science department pick a good team for big Flop to manage on Thursday.

31 Dec 2024 14:48:41
Park Snr takes 11% on the £ for every £ generated, so he's sitting pretty.

So, if my calculations are correct (please tell me if they aren't), after we generated £88m, and him taking 11% of this, we're talking just under £10m to line his ever deepening pockets.

I wonder why he doesn't want to sell up?

31 Dec 2024 18:54:20
Just something about him doesn't sit right with me, don't know what, gies me the bile.

01 Jan 2025 08:51:10
I ignored this as thought it was bogus but can't now. So my understanding would be that if every shareholder took the percentage of the income rated to the shareholding they have there would be no money left to pay for anything. so Park gets 11% King gets 14% and so on until the 100% of shares are paid the requisite amount so this is obviously absolute rubbish. just think of it logically as that isn't possible to do and have any money left from the revenue. I don't think they even get dividends on their shares.

If executive posts they will get a directors remuneration, if they lend money to the club they will get interest on it at a rate lower than the banks and lower than they would earn just by putting it in a bog standard savings account .

01 Jan 2025 18:11:35
Angus it does not merit a response,

01 Jan 2025 19:17:00
I agree John dn hadn't but felt that it needed some explanation if fans were reading it and thinking it was true.

01 Jan 2025 20:23:37
Angus simple read the annual report.

01 Jan 2025 21:11:36
John i'm confused are you telling me that the shareholders get 14% for King and Park get 11% of the turnover of the club. i'm not an accountant but from what I can see in annual accounts those levels of payments aren't made to shareholders. I may be wrong and happy to be given info on what I am obviously missing.

02 Jan 2025 13:35:24
Absolutely not, someone as usual making it up,

Shareholders get no dividends at rangers.

Guys like king park Bennett received 4% on loans they provided, much much less than banks or finance companies charge.
As you rightly point out the annual accounts clearly state this is garbageb.

02 Jan 2025 14:53:59
cheers John. I just wasnt sure if you were saying I got the main part wrong.

03 Jan 2025 15:57:15
So John, are you categorically saying that Park, or his group, do not take 11% of every £ earned? If you are, are you 100% on this?

Unlike some on here, I do not claim to have "usual sources" or are ITK, but this came from a reliable source. One of my clients (big Rangers fan, and corporate member at Ibrox) was telling me that his son was part of the team doing our books/ accounts, and he is adamant we are paying Park this 11% on the £. Why would he lie? Why make this up? He has nothing to get from it! He has no axe to grind with the Park's! He loves our club as much as we do!

So, I'll ask you again? Are you 100% certain of this? And if you are, and still spouting that this is "garbage", then what do you know that these accountants don't?

03 Jan 2025 17:47:31
Agree with John on this one (as it’s true) what your saying is impossible sunshine. Just no where near correct. Shareholders don’t get paid the % of revenue based on their holding.

03 Jan 2025 22:16:44
if they did then it would need to be on the books or it would be against the law. or does the team who are doing the books not disclose this or disclose it as something else again against the law. However your clients son would know this if he is a part of the team so ask him what it is listed as in the debits on the accounts. Everything coming in (revenue) must balance against everything going out (expenditure) . as I say ask your contact what it is listed as an expenditure in the accounts then look for that in the accounts and you will have the answer.

04 Jan 2025 08:21:53
actually Sunshine it is simpler than that. you are an intelligent poster so think about it. if every shareholder got the percentage of our revenue linked to their shareholding then there would be no revenue left to pay the player wages etc. now does that sound possible.

05 Jan 2025 16:29:25
I would call bs on that SS no way is that the case.

05 Jan 2025 17:25:19
watch your ribs Sunshine they must be close to breaking after that gem from Storm.

05 Jan 2025 18:13:16
🤣🤣🤣🤣

I needed that laugh after today. M Utd have just bloody equalised there just as I read that.

OK, you say it's BS, Angus has explained why he thinks it's wrong, and that absolutely fine. But, why would this guy lie? Why would his son lie? Could this payment be lumped into staff costs?

Does Park make money from Rangers? He's not in it for the glory, is he?!

05 Jan 2025 18:56:28
Sunshine. I am not an accountant but can work my way roughly around a set of accounts. If we need to pay someone such as a director it needs to be shown in the accounts. If you search for director's emoluments which are salary expenses etc. these show no amounts being paid in the accounts to any director.

the auditors also need to make certain disclosures of directors’ remuneration above this specified by law when they are not made. I think that this would cover the 11% of turnover which you mention.

However my main reason is that do you see the other directors allowing the Park's to be paid 11% of the revenue when they don't and if all took it there would be nothing left.
your mates son's company have to sign off the accounts as well so why would they do it.
but no I can't be 100% certain which is why I initially suggested you confirm your understanding of what they were saying.

05 Jan 2025 19:52:05
I don’t know the guy, but folk like to make up rubbish all the time. You need to look at the excuse after excuse for our manager mate.

06 Jan 2025 08:58:32
I doubt this guy would make up "rubbish", Storm - and if you knew him, you'd understand this. This is a very successful businessman who doesn't need to make up stories to impress anyone, so I have no reason not to believe him.

What do you want me to say to him Angus? "There's a couple of posters on the Rangers forum I post on calling BS on what you're saying. Can you explain to me again what you meant"? I could ask him this, but I won't! 🤣.

06 Jan 2025 09:47:14
SS encourage him to report the club for releasing false accounts.

06 Jan 2025 10:29:32
no SS not the first part but how about, remember you said the last time that Park was getting 11% of turnover but I didn't quite understand what you meant can you explain it to me again. I suspect you have misunderstood him rather than him lying.

but I agree with John if he thinks a crime has been committed then he needs to report it. His son would be protected under whistle blowing legislation.

06 Jan 2025 11:17:43
🤣🤣🤣🤣
No, I fully understood him, but I always love being patronised! 🤣🤣🤣🤣.

06 Jan 2025 13:25:48
Sunshine it isn't me coming on saying what you are. I have tried my best to explain what I know without being patronising. You asked how you could approach the guy and I gave a wording, it wasnt meant o be patronising but helpful as I am interested in what exactly he meant.

However to be clear then there is no way EVER that the shareholders are getting the percentage of revenue exactly the same as their shareholding. there would be no money left for wages or anything else and your mate's son's accountancy firm would be breaking the law by not declaring this anywhere in the accounts.
so either he/ they are not telling you the truth or you misunderstood what they said. as Sergei says 'simples"

06 Jan 2025 14:00:58
one last post on this as it will never end. I wasnt patronising you however this one just might seem it. so you actually think that every shareholder gets the revenue as a percentage of the shares they hold? How do you think the wages and other expenses get paid? If you do believe that then I just don't know.

06 Jan 2025 15:01:31
🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣.

06 Jan 2025 17:06:29
You appear to be hlluva triggered from me posting something I was told! 🤣

Is that you Douglas? 😁.

08 Jan 2025 12:43:08
Think he's only pointing out what you got told was wrong.