Follow Follow Rangers. Season 2023/24

[AJF]

9 hours ago, Jinky67 said:

Then the question you really should be asking is why you can’t keep up with it.

Don’t pretend to be naive and act as if you don’t know the answer to that.

I wasn’t suggesting we should or could keep up with Celtic’s spending, I was more suggesting that Celtic having vastly superior spending power is as much a fact as the sky is blue. It cannot be denied.

Rangers have began to use transfer income and European revenue to minimise losses and repay shareholder loans, something that every non-Rangers fan has said we should be doing for years.

Our board were always committed to covering any shortfall until such a time we were “self sufficient” so to speak. They clearly believe that time has just about come.

[gannonball]

11 hours ago, Jinky67 said:

This is the first season in quite a while we have had a transfer deficit, its not as if this is season after season. Our transfer market activity since 16/17 has been pretty shrewd which has allowed us to continue investing in the squad and despite our spend we still and most importantly remain profitable 

 

 

 

10 hours ago, AJF said:

I was giving the transfer spend since the squad overhaul started under Postecoglou that @gannonballmentioned which highlights the vastly differing budgets of the two teams during that period.

Being profitable or not doesn’t change or alter the fact that Celtic are able to, and have, outspent us to a degree that we cannot keep up with.

This season is probably the first time in about a decade that have had a transfer deficit, where as its probably the opposite way way round for Rangers. So lets not pretend this season is the norm and its the first time in a long time we knew we were getting champions league football. Whilst we are the bigger club lets not pretend we’re significantly bigger or that we have some sugar daddy bank rolling us. We basically make our margins bigger than yours through  sales of our better player which Rangers* have failed to do on a consistent basis and racked up significant losses in the process. Going ahead now though your investors appear to be no longer willing to absorb the losses as well as not really having much in the way saleable assets so it could start to stretch to a significant financial gap your are claiming.

[Clown Job]

Some laugh that AGM must have been 

[AJF]

40 minutes ago, gannonball said:

 

This season is probably the first time in about a decade that have had a transfer deficit, where as its probably the opposite way way round for Rangers. So lets not pretend this season is the norm and its the first time in a long time we knew we were getting champions league football. Whilst we are the bigger club lets not pretend we’re significantly bigger or that we have some sugar daddy bank rolling us. We basically make our margins bigger than yours through  sales of our better player which Rangers* have failed to do on a consistent basis and racked up significant losses in the process. Going ahead now though your investors appear to be no longer willing to absorb the losses as well as not really having much in the way saleable assets so it could start to stretch to a significant financial gap your are claiming.

I never claimed it was the norm, I was using the same time period that YOU used when you first mentioned Celtic's squad rebuild which started when Postecoglou came in. Why would I change the time period to a decade when that isn't what was mentioned?

I also never claimed you were bankrolled by some sugar daddy, but you are naive to the extreme if you ignore the obvious factors that have led to Celtic's turnover dwarfing ours since 2012. We have been playing catch up ever since and are still a long way behind in terms of our ability to spend and cash in the bank. That is just a simple fact.

You stated that in the period since they started their rebuild, that Celtic used their sellable assets to fund a squad rebuild. However, they have spent more than they have brought in during that period, and Rangers have brought in more than Celtic have in that same period on players which also highlighted your claim of only selling Patterson to be false.

Our investors have always been upfront regarding their funding, which was they would cover any losses until such time we have adopted a self-sufficient model which is essentially qualify for the CL or sell players. This is the exact same model that Celtic adopt and is our end goal.

ETA: It is not surprising that Celtic fans try to downplay the significant financial advantage they have over us and the vastly different spending levels in the last 2 years when it comes to comparing our current fortunes.

2 years ago we were the better side, since then, Celtic have spent to overtake us again. That is not to deny that Postecoglou is performing very well. He deserves credit for that undoubtedly. But it is what it is.

Edited December 8, 2022 by AJF

[gannonball]

26 minutes ago, Clown Job said:

Some laugh that AGM must have been 

Conspiracies aside wtf has it to do With The board? Some shoehorning there by moonhowler.

18 minutes ago, AJF said:

I never claimed it was the norm, I was using the same time period that YOU used when you first mentioned Celtic's squad rebuild which started when Postecoglou came in. Why would I change the time period to a decade when that isn't what was mentioned?

I also never claimed you were bankrolled by some sugar daddy, but you are naive to the extreme if you ignore that obvious factors that have led to Celtic's turnover dwarfing ours since 2012. We have been playing catch up ever since and are still a long way behind in terms of our ability to spend and cash in the bank. That is just a simple fact.

You stated that in the period since they started their rebuild, that Celtic used their sellable assets to fund a squad rebuild. However, they have spent more than they have brought in during that period, and Rangers have brought in more than Celtic have in that same period on players which also highlighted your claim of only selling Patterson to be false.

Our investors have always been upfront regarding their funding, which was they would cover any losses until such time we have adopted a self-sufficient model which is essentially qualify for the CL or sell players. This is the exact same model that Celtic adopt and is our end goal.

 

Yes but the rebuild was funded by years and years of player sales before that. For example in the time you have had Morelos we bought and sold Dembele, then Edouard and now have been able to buy 2 more decent strikers for less than what we paid for Eddie in the first place. You can moan about spending differences but the reality is we were able to spend that cash due to being savvy and selling at the right time. You could have funded your own rebuild selling Morelos a season or two ago but decided to keep him and now goosed, same goes for Kent. If we let Dembele, Eddie Ajer etc run down their contract we would be in much the same position as you. We earned our spending power through developing and selling our better players and finding others in the time that Rangers* tried to keep them. Neither club is able to do that long term due to the wages elsewhere, it also isn’t sustainable for either club to have a transfer deficit just about every season.

Edited December 8, 2022 by gannonball

[AJF]

24 minutes ago, gannonball said:

Conspiracies aside wtf has it to do With The board? Some shoehorning there by moonhowler.

Yes but the rebuild was funded by years and years of player sales before that. For example in the time you have had Morelos we bought and sold Dembele, then Edouard and now have been able to buy 2 more decent strikers for less than what we paid for Eddie in the first place. You can moan about spending differences but the reality is we were able to spend that cash due to being savvy and selling at the right time. You could have funded your own rebuild selling Morelos a season or two ago but decided to keep him and now goosed, same goes for Kent. If we let Dembele, Eddie Ajer etc run down their contract we would be in much the same position as you. We earned our spending power through developing and selling our better players and finding others in the time that Rangers* tried to keep them. Neither club is able to do that long term due to the wages elsewhere, it also isn’t sustainable for either club to have a transfer deficit just about every season.

Why do you keep ignoring the fact that we sold Patterson, Bassey and Aribo for over €40m? How much would we have needed to bring in for you to consider it enough for a rebuild?

It is not a case of moaning, it is a case of accepting that we are financially way behind Celtic, something that Celtic fans don't want to accept.

The fact is we still spent over €14m in the summer, which is a hell of a lot of money for a Scottish side. I'm just saying that it is a pittance in comparison to what Celtic have spent.

Edited December 8, 2022 by AJF

[gannonball]

26 minutes ago, AJF said:

Why do you keep ignoring the fact that we sold Patterson, Bassey and Aribo for over €40m? How much would we have needed to bring in for you to consider it enough for a rebuild?

The fact is we still spent over €14m in the summer, which is a hell of a lot of money for a Scottish side. I'm just saying that it is a pittance in comparison to what Celtic have spent.

Im not ignoring it but thats all come in the past year, there has been over 100 million in losses in the past decade though and the cash you mentioned went back to the investors absorbing it mainly. Your moaning about this gap is mainly due to mismanagement of your club rather than us having this pot of gold. We just happened to have good player trading model which helped fund our our overhaul and increase our wage budget. Admittedly we are the bigger club though with slightly larger revenue streams when you take away competition money etc so there is that too.
ETA - We seem to have this discussion regarding player sales every few months so think we are covering old ground here tbh.

Edited December 8, 2022 by gannonball

[AJF]

17 minutes ago, gannonball said:

Im not ignoring it but thats all come in the past year, there has been over 100 million in losses in the past decade though and the cash you mentioned went back to the investors absorbing it mainly. Your moaning about this gap is mainly due to mismanagement of your club rather than us having this pot of gold. We just happened to have good player trading model which helped fund our our overhaul and increase our wage budget. Admittedly we are the bigger club though with slightly larger revenue streams when you take away competition money etc so there is that too.
ETA - We seem to have this discussion regarding player sales every few months so think we are covering old ground here tbh.

Aye, let's call it a day as I don't think we are going to ever agree 

[Insaintee]

33 minutes ago, AJF said:

Aye, let's call it a day as I don't think we are going to ever agree 

Post of the year from AJ

[AJF]

14 minutes ago, Insaintee said:

Post of the year from AJ

If you have no interest in me posting about Rangers in the Rangers thread, then you are under no obligation to read it. Just ignore and move on rather than be condescending.

[Insaintee]

1 hour ago, AJF said:

If you have no interest in me posting about Rangers in the Rangers thread, then you are under no obligation to read it. Just ignore and move on rather than be condescending.

Feeling a bit raw this morning?

[stressball]

16 hours ago, AJF said:

I was giving the transfer spend since the squad overhaul started under Postecoglou that @gannonballmentioned which highlights the vastly differing budgets of the two teams during that period.

Being profitable or not doesn’t change or alter the fact that Celtic are able to, and have, outspent us to a degree that we cannot keep up with.

Makes a change since the tenner for every fiver days.

Edited December 8, 2022 by stressball

[Clown Job]

Rangers liquidators finally settle tax case as eye-watering EBT figure shows club could never have been saved

Rangers, under former owner David Murray, were propelled headlong towards liquidation when HMRC caught on to their misuse of an Employee Benefits Trust scheme. EBTs, as they are known, were utilised from 2001 to 2011 to avoid paying tax and national insurance on player and staff salaries funnelled through them

Now, BDO, have finally reached agreement with HMRC on the tax denied to the Treasury coffers by Rangers. First, and principally, during the Murray era, and then after Craig Whyte bought the club from the Edinbugh-based businessman for a £1 in May 2011 and proceeded to withhold tax. A sale rushed through because Murray was then coming under severe pressure from Lloyds Bank as his empire had racked up a mountainous debt that the bank largely was on the hook for.

BDO have now reached a “negotiated resolution” that has resulted in a “composite settlement” of £56m for the whole HMRC claim. Or, if you prefer, almost 87% of what the tax authority sought to have lodged

This conclusion to an interminable saga is significant since there were some bizarre moves three years ago to promote the notion that gross miscalculation by HMRC over EBTs had prevented Murray attracting a buyer beyond the dubious turnaround specialist Whyte to spare the old Rangers from liquidation. Yet, even without Whyte’s arrival on the scene and his subsequent mismanagement, Rangers would still have been left with a near £50m bill to HMRC. A liability they could never have satisfied and, as this demand hadn’t crystallised in 2011, never found an alternative buyer to step forward back then. Especially when there was an additional £18m bank debt Lloyds demanded be repaid before sanctioning any sale of the Ibrox club.

It doesn’t affect the finances of the current Rangers – under a different company structure – that creditors are in line to receive just over 14p in the pound over the car crash that the club’s finances became before they hit the wall. But these absolutes should surely end any further misguided attempts to present a scenario in which Rangers could have avoided liquidation and the need, essentially, to reform in 2012.

Edit: Yet you’ll still have the brass next to claim the trophies and argue “it’s the same club” 

Edited December 8, 2022 by Clown Job

[Jinky67]

8 hours ago, AJF said:

Why do you keep ignoring the fact that we sold Patterson, Bassey and Aribo for over €40m? How much would we have needed to bring in for you to consider it enough for a rebuild?

It is not a case of moaning, it is a case of accepting that we are financially way behind Celtic, something that Celtic fans don't want to accept.

The fact is we still spent over €14m in the summer, which is a hell of a lot of money for a Scottish side. I'm just saying that it is a pittance in comparison to what Celtic have spent.

What it seems to be is a thinly veiled excuse to justify underperformance and poor financial management.

You are club capable of turnover figures close if not similar to what we do. What you don’t seem capable of is making good decisions when to sell players at the right time which is the one of the big reasons Celtic can outspend you.

And I’m happy to accept you are financially behind us but again that is purely down not to an inability to generate revenue but an inability to manage it wisely.

Edited December 8, 2022 by Jinky67

[AJF]

3 hours ago, Jinky67 said:

And I’m happy to accept you are financially behind us but again that is purely down not to an inability to generate revenue but an inability to manage it wisely.

Aye? Would you care to provide me with the Rangers vs Celtic turnover comparison for the last 2/5/10 years then?

[Sortmeout]

So much discussion over a holding companies financial results.  

[Jinky67]

1 hour ago, AJF said:

Aye? Would you care to provide me with the Rangers vs Celtic turnover comparison for the last 2/5/10 years then?

Why would I need to do that? You generated £86m of revenue last season. That alone evidences you are capable of it, selling your players at the right time and not letting them go at the end of contracts for f**k all when you could have recouped £20-£30 million combined for Kent & Morelos and spending ridiculous loan fees on the likes of Diallo and Ramsey evidences the dumbfuckery of managing it wisely. 

It seems you want to throw yourself somewhat of a pity party though so crack the f**k on mate

 

Edited December 9, 2022 by Jinky67

[Theroadlesstravelled]

I’d imagine the income from the Europa League, Champions League and selling players would be significant for any club. Over £100 million brought in the last 7 or 8 months?

Where did the money go?

 

If you tell me Mike Ashley is still getting it I won’t need anything for Christmas.

[AJF]

7 hours ago, Jinky67 said:

Why would I need to do that? You generated £86m of revenue last season. That alone evidences you are capable of it, selling your players at the right time and not letting them go at the end of contracts for f**k all when you could have recouped £20-£30 million combined for Kent & Morelos and spending ridiculous loan fees on the likes of Diallo and Ramsey evidences the dumbfuckery of managing it wisely. 

It seems you want to throw yourself somewhat of a pity party though so crack the f**k on mate

 

We made record revenue last season and it took reaching the Europa League final to do it and it was still less than what Celtic brought in.

”you are capable of it” drastically oversimplifies the matter. I’ve never once argued against the point that Kent or Morelos could’ve been cashed in earlier, but that also ignore that we sold more than £40m of talent in the last 12 months so it’s hardly as if we haven’t been selling well in that period.

[Jinky67]

31 minutes ago, AJF said:

We made record revenue last season and it took reaching the Europa League final to do it and it was still less than what Celtic brought in.

”you are capable of it” drastically oversimplifies the matter. I’ve never once argued against the point that Kent or Morelos could’ve been cashed in earlier, but that also ignore that we sold more than £40m of talent in the last 12 months so it’s hardly as if we haven’t been selling well in that period.

That’s because it is very simple. The £86m of revenue generated doesn’t include £40m of sold talent so it seems you are deliberately trying to skew the numbers a little….you didn’t happen to be the pre 2012 accountant did you?

Your only significant sale included in that number was Paterson whereas Celtic did actually sell more than £40m worth of talent our highest ever season for transfer fees recouped I believe.

You mentioned context a couple of times so probably would help if you applied some however as I said this feels to me a pre-emptive stance you are taking to justify underperformance, it’s an interesting take from a fan of the supposedly biggest club in Scotland to suggest they really aren’t that big anymore compared to Celtic. 

Don’t be mistaken I’m pretty happy that we are able to do what we do while the bean counters at Ibrox scratch their heads. It’s all a bit karmatic

Edited December 9, 2022 by Jinky67