Big Rangers Administration/Liquidation Thread - All chat here!

[The DA]

11 hours ago, Ross. said:

So who has had an arrestment order upheld? Seen it hinted at on the John James site earlier which made me very skeptical but also heard from a former colleague at said bank who has backed up with John James is claiming.

I wonder if it's the wifi guys seeking to ring-fence their money again.  Rangers can hardly argue that they're not in danger of insolvency this time round, not after the Takeover Panel decision and the Close Brothers having ring-fenced half their assets.

http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/14207489.Rangers_win_fight_to_stop___300_000_arrestment_of_funds_by_WiFi_firm_over_fears_of_club_insolvency/

[kiddy]

When does the Close Bro's money run out?

[bennett]

1 hour ago, kiddy said:

When does the Close Bro's money run out?

Tomorrow.

[kiddy]

When's the next BDO statement due?

[bennett]

2 hours ago, kiddy said:

When's the next BDO statement due?

Yesterday.

[bairney]

When are Sevco losing the league again? 

[Jdog]

Dave King forced by a court yesterday to show the £11m for shares, next day one of the "good guys" resigns...and the basket case of a club trundles on

[Doink]

Mark Warburton 

[Ken Fitlike]

Wee Stevie, the IT guy

[nsr]

Values and traditions.

[Joey Jo Jo Junior Shabadoo]

https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/dave-king-announces-rangers-raise-12494716

Some nonsensical financial jargon that doesn't make a lick of sense, and apparently it takes two weeks to open a bank account. Hmm.

[sugna]

54 minutes ago, Joey Jo Jo Junior Shabadoo said:

https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/dave-king-announces-rangers-raise-12494716

Some nonsensical financial jargon that doesn't make a lick of sense, and apparently it takes two weeks to open a bank account. Hmm.

That whole piece pretty much consists of quotes attributed to King that are verifiable lies (sic).

1. He has said before, and it has been reported before, that the Takeover Panel* has finally agreed with him/relented to his request, allowing one of his trusts to make the offer. In fact, when he brought NOAL into the discussions with the TAB well over a year ago, they initially said he could keep them up-to-date, nae bother, but he was responsible for the concert party; then after he lost his appeal (but pre-CoS), he asked if NOAL could offer on his behalf and was told that was fine. A trust fulfilling his obligations has never been in any way an issue for the Takeover Panel, the TAB, or the CoS. This is similar to the way that he described 41 2-year jail sentences for his criminal conviction - with the option of paying millions to avoid the clink - as a "favourable outcome". But it's all in the public domain.

2. The entire tale about movement and proof of funds is completely made-up, with even less connection to reality (specifically, the truth) than the offer-by-trust anecdote. It has always been the case that King had to have cleared funds in an escrow-type account: the money has to be there in full, in advance, and not controllable (i.e. withdrawable) by King until the entire exercise is  complete. But if the reporting even slightly reflects what he said today, he has constructed an entire fiction around this point and his conversations with the Takeover Panel. By pure coincidence, those conversations have led to the position that can be described as "comply with the code, exactly as we instructed you to do a year and a half ago".

3. The £6m statement makes zero sense. They have getting on for £20m of debt that they want to convert to equity. Call it £14m to be conservative and make the sums easy. That means they need to raise £20m from a share offer or rights issue, net of expenses. With 20p a share, that comes out at 100 million shares. They don't have the authority for that, and the last (rights) issue raised a little under £4m.

* Actually, he said it was the CoS appeal judgement last time. But that was a lie, as can be seen by, well, reading that judgement.

[strichener]

1 hour ago, Joey Jo Jo Junior Shabadoo said:

https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/dave-king-announces-rangers-raise-12494716

Some nonsensical financial jargon that doesn't make a lick of sense, and apparently it takes two weeks to open a bank account. Hmm.

Yep, it isn't like there are no alternative to this.  Never in the history of the whole universe has anyone ever has used bank guarantees or escrow accounts.

[Joey Jo Jo Junior Shabadoo]

2 minutes ago, strichener said:

Yep, it isn't like there are no alternative to this.  Never in the history of the whole universe has anyone ever has used bank guarantees or escrow accounts.

I don't expect Scottish Football journalists to have a decent grasp of this, but surely at least one must think to question the fact that the bank account line is clearly utter bullshit? Even if it did take two weeks to open a bank account, why the f**k would you need to? You'd simply lodge it with your lawyers or equivalent.

In fact, by definition opening your own account for this one transaction would completely defeat the purpose of ring fencing it in the first place.

[Florentine_Pogen]

Steven Gerrard: Expect the Unorthodox

View all posts by Tony McKelvieMay 6, 2018

Steven Gerrard

 

It is well observed, though infrequently acknowledged, that in the current environment, Scottish football cannot sustain more than one successful club. “Successful” in this regard is absolute rather than relative, defined as regularly winning the Championship and competing in the group stages of European competition on a self-sustaining (UEFA FFP compliant) financial model.

 

The primary driver of this is the disproportionate impact that qualifying for the group stages of the Champions League has on a club’s finances, and the exclusion from access to the Champions League of clubs other than the league champions. There is simply not enough money in the Game in Scotland to support non-champion clubs in finding financial parity with the Champions.

 

Last season Celtic earned £28.5M (€31.7M) in UEFA Champions League distributions, on top of the gate receipts from 3 groups stage matches and 3 qualifiers; a further £10M or more. The influence of Champions League participation can be seen in the table below, which splits Celtic’s income according to source:

 

2016/17 European Revenue Domestic Revenue Total Revenue

Prize Money £28.5M £3M £31.5M

Gate Revenue £10M £27.5M £37.5M

Merchandising – £16.5M £16.5M

Commercial – £5M £5M

Total £38.5M £52M £90.5M

In addition to this revenue, Celtic are also adept at generating value from player trading. In the past 4 years the club has made a gain on the sale of players of £38.5M, an average of almost £10M per year. The cumulation of revenue from domestic and European competition plus player trading supported a total budget of around £80M in 2016/17, of which Wages represent £52M.

 

In comparison, the next 4 best supported clubs in Scotland are entirely detached.

 

2016/17 Total Revenue Gain (Loss) on Player Sales Wages Profit (Loss)

Aberdeen £15.2M £0.6M £7.7M (£1.2M)

Hearts £11.3M £0.2M £5.9M £2.3M

Hibernian* £7.7M £0.5M £4.5M (£0.3M)

Rangers £29.2M (£0.45M) £17.5M (£6.6M)

Total £63.4M £0.85M £35.6M (£5.8M)

*Hibernian played in the second tier in 2016/17. Season 2017/18 will see revenue exceed £10M following their promotion to the Premiership

 

The cumulative budget (the sum of all revenues plus losses) of the next 4 best supported teams in Scotland is £69.2M, 30% less than Celtic’s revenue. Similarly, their cumulative spend on Wages is just 70% of Celtic’s. And Wages matters.

 

The seminal study on the performance of football teams was undertaken by Szymanski and Kuper and published in their book Soccernomics. Their research demonstrated that over the course of ten seasons the correlation between Wages and League Position was 90%: The higher the wages paid, the better quality of player recruited, and by extension, the better the quality of player, the higher the league position. And this is a problem for any club in Scotland wanting to topple Celtic: You need to match them financially. You need parity in Wages in order to get parity on the pitch.

 

And there’s a further problem implied in this: If Wages represents 90% of Performance, the manager’s influence is worth perhaps only 10% of the Outcome. Indeed, Kuper has recently revised his research, and included the impact of Analytics and relatedly, Sports Science. According to Kuper, the role of the manager has shrunk in recent years, as clubs reorganise themselves to take advantage of emerging best practice. Analytics are used to scout players, budget applied to recruit them, conditioning specialists employed to prepare them physically. And in all of this, the manager’s role is increasingly confined to first team tactics. And luck.

 

And so to this week’s big news: Steven Gerrard. Great excitement has accompanied Gerrard’s appointment as manager of Rangers. It is beyond question that Gerrard coming to Scotland to cut his teeth in football management is box office. More words will be written, more bytes will be bitten, on this story than any other in the coming days. Steven Gerrard playing Apprentice to Brendan Rodgers’ Sorcerer will animate the narrative of the coming season.

 

Gerrard’s lack of experience – this is his first management job after a season coaching under 18s – is naturally a major focus of discussion. When Dave King, in introducing Gerrard to the press, said: “I don’t necessarily think that inexperience will work against him” he wasn’t entirely misdirected, given the Soccernomics research.

 

Behind the stories, behind the excitement, the sixty four thousand dollar question: How will Rangers fund the Gerrard adventure? Actually, it’s the sixty four million pounds question, for that is, in round numbers, the size of the “gap” Rangers need to bridge financially in order to create a business that can wage a team that has an even chance of beating Celtic on the pitch, if Kuper and Szymanski are right.

 

On that basis, let’s take a more detailed look at the financial league table:

 

2016/17 Celtic Rangers The “Gap”

European Football £38.5M – +£38.1M

Domestic Football £30.5M £25.2M +£5.3M

Merchandising £16.5M £2M +£14.5M

Commercial £5M £1.9 +£3.1M

Total Revenue £90.5 £29.1M +£61.4M

Player Trading £9.6M (£0.4M) +£10M

Total Income £100.1M £28.7M +£71.4M

As the table shows, the scale of the enterprise operated by Celtic dwarfs that of Rangers. In addition to the substantial revenue generated by Celtic from European football, all other key income channels are considerably greater, and the Income gap between the businesses is in excess of £70 Million. This impacts directly on the financial resources available to each, shown in the table below:

 

Wages £52M £17.5M +£34.5M

Profit £6.9M (£6.3M) +£13.2M

Net Cash £17.9M (£11.1M) +£29M

Whereas Celtic are profitable with a Wages spend of £52M, Rangers are loss-making with a Wages spend of one third of that. Profit feeds cash, which enables investment, whereas losses diminish reserves. In Rangers’ case, as reserves cannot sustain the losses, they require to be backfilled with debt, and to date this has been provided by certain Directors.

 

Of course, these numbers relate to the last full financial year reported – season 2016/17. Almost a full season has elapsed since these figures were current, and in the intervening period the performance of both businesses has changed. The interim (six months) figures released by each club gives some idea as to the major changes, together with inferences we can draw from other sources.

 

Celtic have increased half year revenue by £10M compared to the same period last year. Given Celtic had an additional home tie in the Europa League in the second half of this season, all else being equal we can expect Celtic’s revenue to the end of the year to have increased by around £12M. Additions to the playing staff, together with higher performance-related bonuses will have increased the wage bill. While (unusually) there have been no significant player sales, a dividend is expected from the transfer of Van Dijk from Southampton to Liverpool.

 

Rangers increased their half year revenue by £3M, in part due to the reorganisation of their Merchandising channels. There was also a home tie in European competition, and one would expect to see improved performance from their Commercial team. Notably, there has been a significant investment in players in both transfer windows, which will inevitably increase the Wages bill, while there will be a modest gain on the sale of players last summer.

 

This information and related assumptions have been summarised in the table below, to provide an estimate of the year-end position for each club:

 

2017/18 Estimate* Celtic Rangers The “Gap”

European Football £43M £1.4M +£41.6M

Domestic Football £32M £25M +£7M

Merchandising £18M £4M +£14M

Commercial £7M £3M +£4M

Total Revenue £102M £33.4M +£68.6M

Player Trading £10M £1M +£9M

Total Income £112M £33.4M +£78.6M

*NB These are year-end estimates based on available information. We should be mindful that there is unavailable information which will impact these numbers, and the table should be read in this light.

 

Celtic’s significantly increased revenue, together with the Van Dijk windfall will largely drop to the bottom line, and despite an increase in Wages, profit will increase accordingly. For Rangers, the increase in revenue will be consumed by the increase in Wages, with the club returning another significant loss.

 

Year-end net cash is in essence the sum of Profit (Loss) plus amortisation, factored for player purchases, the likely impacts at the year-end shown in the table below:

 

Wages £55M £22M +£33M

Profit £16M (£6M) +£22M

Net Cash £32M (£19M) +£51M

Net cash is important to note, as it provides the financial wherewithal to “do something” when something needs doing. Celtic are sitting on a pile of cash so large that they don’t know quite what to do with it all. Hotels, stadium upgrades, indoor training pitches, all manner of projects in the pipeline, notwithstanding Brendan Rodgers’ plans for the first team. Rangers by contrast, do not generate sufficient cash to support their current operations.

 

In order for Rangers to be able to achieve financial parity with Celtic – a precursor to parity on the pitch – they need to grow a business that is capable of sustaining a Wages bill that is at least double their current spend. In an orthodox business model, Rangers need to double the size of their enterprise, something that might take a mature business 5 years to achieve. Given the influence of and difficulty in obtaining Champions League revenue, it’s an achievement that seems somewhat unlikely.

 

Moreover, Steven Gerrard doesn’t have years to hang around while Rangers grow a business large enough to wage a team capable of competing with Celtic. Accordingly, we need to look to other places in considering how Rangers might achieve competitive parity with Celtic.

 

The most obvious factor is European revenue, and in this regard, it is what happens at Celtic that delivers the impact. Because Celtic require to run the gauntlet of 4 qualifying rounds to reach the Champions League, in any given season the probability of doing so is 50:50. With over £40M at stake, Rangers can but hope that Celtic fail, thus reducing the financial gap at a stroke.

 

However, Celtic’s business model is designed to sustain the club in those years without European revenue. A failure in one season will not change the landscape. To close the “gap”, Rangers need Celtic to become serial European failures.

 

But what can Rangers do off their own bat? Clearly, with already fully subscribed season ticket sales, the room to grow revenue from domestic Gate receipts is limited. However, a top 3 finish in the SPFL provides access to the UEFA Europa League, and if they can navigate four qualifying rounds, promises prize money of £7M plus gate receipts of the same order. There’s £14M to play for.

 

There is also considerable room to improve the performance of Merchandising revenue, and this is a key channel following the termination of the previous arrangements with Sports Direct. We might expect Merchandising revenue to double, adding £4M to the top line.

 

Equally, Commercial and Sponsorship income have room to improve, but each takes time, and the impact is relatively modest given the scale of task. Perhaps £2-3M additional in due course.

 

Optimising Gates, Merchandising, Commercial and Sponsorship might, in due course add £8M in revenue, while the Europa League offers upwards of £14M in a qualifying year. This gives the total enterprise a revenue of £55M in a good year, still less than Celtic’s in a bad year. And it won’t be achieved immediately.

 

Steven Gerrard’s period in charge of Rangers will not be funded through incremental growth in the club’s revenue channels. Nor will it be funded from reserves, given Rangers will have a negative net cash position of around £20M when he starts the job (standing no changes to capital in the interim).

 

Debt funding from commercial sources is problematic as Rangers have neither the collateral to secure funding, nor the cashflow to service resultant debt. External investment from professional fund managers – via a public share issue for example – is wholly unlikely as long as the business model provides no prospect of investor returns. And that notwithstanding current legal difficulties with the Takeover Panel, and associated reputational damage. The same issues act to discourage private investors.

 

Ally McCoist is quoted today on Gerrard’s prospects, saying: “For Rangers to go and win the league next year, he’ll need £25million to £30million, minimum.”

 

What McCoist overlooks is that Gerrard will need that every season to compete, for that is the scale of the disparity in finances. That much plus the Analytics, the Sports Science, the Scouting and the rest of the professional apparatus. The orthodox sources of funding cannot provide the scale of resources that Gerrard will need to achieve competitive parity.

 

Accordingly, we need to look to unorthodox sources, and in this regard, the people running Rangers are well experienced. Dave King and Alastair Johnston saw at first hand the impact of other people’s money on football budget, whether Murray Group’s, the bank’s or HMRC’s. They are well connected, creative business people. And in bringing in Gerrard, one might expect they have a plan to fund him. If Gerrard is to be funded, expect the unorthodox.

 

 

https://someoldhat.wordpress.com/2018/05/06/steven-gerrard-expect-the-unorthodox/

 

Apologies for length of post but thought it was worth putting up in entirety.

[MONKMAN]

You could have just said Celtic are stacked, and the **** are skint.

[Mark Connolly]

If they have the share issue before Dave sorts out the Takeover Panel stuff, will he have to buy them to?

Or is it more likely that it can't happen until he sorts it out?

[bennett]

44 minutes ago, Mark Connolly said:

If they have the share issue before Dave sorts out the Takeover Panel stuff, will he have to buy them to?

Or is it more likely that it can't happen until he sorts it out?

@hellbhoy

 

[hellbhoy]

12 minutes ago, bennett said:

@hellbhoy

 

@bennett & @Bennett1690

I can play this game too....

Edited May 7, 2018 by hellbhoy
pfffffft

[bennett]

11 minutes ago, hellbhoy said:

@bennett & @Bennett1690

I can play this game too....

Just trying to raise your profile as P and Bs foremost financial go to guy.