Finances

[sugna]

Following the announcement of King's stepping-down as chairman, and regardless of the reasons underlying that, it's a good point to review the "financial stability" that he says is so important. To avoid propagating spin that has been fed through the Daily Record and others, I've taken a look at audited accounts for projected borrowing requirements to the end of each season. They are:

• 2016 - £3.75m
• 2017 - £4m (plus £3.2m projected for 2018-19 season)
• 2018 - £4.6m (plus £3m for 2019-20)
• 2019 - £10m

That appears to my untrained eye to be going in the wrong direction, away from stability; and the 230% error in projected 2019-20 borrowing (from the previous year's accounts) seems like quite a lot.

It also looks like a possible Scottish record for the cumulative borrowing requirement over just 4 years, in return for no major silverware. (Although that's dividing by zero to get the amount per trophy, so maybe isn't valid.)

There are several outstanding legal issues to be resolved, and at least one significant bill to be settled where liability has been established, and only the amount of the claim is to be decided (the £1.3m claim for the Memorial Wall). It's not clear if the £10m covers all of that.

It strikes me that the 2015 coup has led to very poor returns on the pitch - lots of borrowing for no tangible success - which would have been absolutely unacceptable as a prospect at the time of the boardroom changes.

The only saving grace appears to be, on the face of it, that the support sees King as "one of us", and prefer a very poor record under his regime to the prospect of a much better one under, say, Mike Ashley. Because Ashley really did/does have the potential to make Rangers the top team in Scotland.

[bennett]

A few weeks ago we needed £11m, now its ten million.

 

Not too shabby imo.

 

 

[kiddy]

How many share issues is that now, a star for every one?

[The_Kincardine]

7 hours ago, sugna said:

 

The only saving grace appears to be, on the face of it, that the support sees King as "one of us", and prefer a very poor record under his regime to the prospect of a much better one under, say, Mike Ashley. Because Ashley really did/does have the potential to make Rangers the top team in Scotland.

80% of your post was clear, coherent and reasonable  You then wasted it with your brain-dead every diddy conclusion with the Ashley trope.

4/10 young Shug.  You can do so much better.

[sugna]

10 hours ago, The_Kincardine said:

80% of your post was clear, coherent and reasonable  You then wasted it with your brain-dead every diddy conclusion with the Ashley trope.

4/10 young Shug.  You can do so much better.

It's just arithmetic. Ashley has a high enough number of pounds that he can put into a football club, to provide Rangers with more funding than Celtic. Leaving aside personal opinions, I'm not sure how that's anything other than an objective fact.

Also, your marking scheme seems unduly harsh: 80% approval garnering just 4/10. I feel like I've just performed an Argentine Tango in front of Craig Revel Horwood.

[invictus]

To be honest, didn't think that Rangers will be able to finish this season with the advantage that they did. I wonder if it's Stevie G the reason or it was just a bad season for Celtic. I don't know what is the state of the finances of both clubs, but I assume that Celtic has more money to spend on players than Rangers. Of course, any financial coach, and I hope I don't have to explain to you what is a financial coach, would tell you that the key to success doesn't always depend on the amount of money you spend, but rather on the way you spend it. I guess, over the course of the last few years, Rangers have managed to do that better than Celtic, and overall, it got them to where they are at the moment.

Edited April 22, 2021 by invictus

[G51]

xVL is off the charts in this thread 

[muirkirk nil]

[BlueBear]

The Pacific Shelf have shed loads a money. 

Oh wait a minute. "Dermott"?!!! 

[kiddy]

Non-Fungible Tokens!

Edited November 24, 2021 by kiddy