Follow Follow Rangers. Season 2023/24

[AJF]

2 minutes ago, bennett said:

Not the point that Willie was making though.

I think that’s what people are overlooking here.

[Snifter Pee Rot]

Patterson might get Sevco keep the lights on money but far from certain. The rest are lower end Championship level.

[gannonball]

39 minutes ago, Vimto90 said:

The point I see is that no other clubs can invest so heavily back into squad after selling their players.

It appears after one good Rangers season Cetic have convinced themselves that they are 2nd behind rangers and will be some achievement to wrestle the league back.

Which is a nonsense given the money spent. The selling a player/s for 30 million and reinvesting only 20 million back argument is brain dead.

They can %age wise if they sell at the right time and develop them well enough. Aberdeen sold McKenna but then spent 800 grand  I think on Hernandez . All whist aiming to fund a new stadium. That signing was too risky and speculative for me but when they sell Ferguson they could divert several hundred thousand of that to another prospect, just like they did when they signed him. 

Also the fact that you have casually knocked 20 million off the sales argument to aid your point would suggest my argument isn’t ‘brain dead’.

Edited November 6, 2021 by gannonball

[Grangemouth Bairn]

29 minutes ago, gannonball said:

Sorry you are changing the narrative again. I’m not pretending Celtic don’t hold a significant advantage over every club in Scotland except Sevco. But constantly ignoring the fact we are only spending money because we have recouped from selling our best players makes you impossible to have any realistic conversation with.

 @AJF I think this is karma for me laughing at you when people were arguing against points you weren’t making.

We are not having a conversation.

Simply put, Celtic should win the league the majority of seasons unless you appoint a total diddy as manager.

[Jacksgranda]

52 minutes ago, Drew Brees said:

Obviously, they run at a loss every season. It’s staggering that a Scottish club with 50,000 season books can run up £100m in losses over 8 years to win 1 trophy. 

Did they not win the Diddy Leagues Cup, too?

[wastecoatwilly]

7 minutes ago, AJF said:

What is your point? Celtic received more in business interruption insurance than Rangers did, btw. Did you know that?

You said nobody is using covid as an excuse,nobody said sevco were fiddling the books.
Being clever with the numbers in different parts of the business is allowed but the bottom line doesn't lie.
Needing 7.5 million from zippy to keep the lights on isn't that bad,this has nothing to do with Celtic M8.

[AJF]

2 minutes ago, wastecoatwilly said:

You said nobody is using covid as an excuse,nobody said sevco were fiddling the books.
Being clever with the numbers in different parts of the business is allowed but the bottom line doesn't lie.
Needing 7.5 million from zippy to keep the lights on isn't that bad,this has nothing to do with Celtic M8.

Okay Willie, enjoy your day.

[wastecoatwilly]

18 minutes ago, AJF said:

Okay Willie, enjoy your day.

The wee company in renfrew done a grand job M8.

[Raidernation]

I find it amusing to read all the speculation about how much sevco players are wort when the truth is they’re worth heehaw unless another club actually WANTS to buy them.
There are also plenty of better options in almost all the positions these players fill.

Could be tough trying to sell them…….

[DukDukGoose]

2 hours ago, RandomGuy. said:

I think he counts as homegrown down south due to his time at Arsenal?

If not then aye, bump his fee down a bit.

I'm almost certain he's homegrown but it's just the type of midfielder he is. Rarely loses the ball but players like that are hard to justify a huge fee for.

[Guest]

1 hour ago, oaksoft said:

What is happening here with Rangers is just blatant financial doping.

That's a £16m loss last year and another £25m this year.

For some reason the authorities are unable or unwilling to stop this regardless of the obvious damage to our game up here.

The sheer scale of the cheating is breathtaking.

Any fair minded football fan should be appalled at this particularly in light of what happened less than 10 years ago.

The old club had decades of financial cheating, yet the authorities did nothing about it.

[Ranaldo Bairn]

8 hours ago, steelmen said:

 

Unfortunately not, because the way they claim the last company/club was set up (it wasn’t) is the way the new club is set up.

They will just pass the club to a new company and secvo 5088 will go into liquidation allowing the club to continue on.

All those mugs who have shares and soft loans will lose all them all amd have to buy new one in the new company.

 

Almost right - Sevco 5088 are the new club, so they will load all the debt onto Rangers International, the holding company, and merrily bash on.

As you say, it's what they pretend happened last time.

[Jinky67]

Surely these losses accumulate every year? Who the f**k is underwriting 100 million worth of loss in 10 years for a club in Scotland?

Champions League money makes a dent but surely this is still a completely unsustainable business plan.

I knew it would look bleak based on Celtics numbers but wow

[DMCs]

Just now, Jinky67 said:

Surely these losses accumulate every year?

Who the f**k is underwriting 100 million worth of loss in 10 years for a club in Scotland?

1 - not necessarily. Our debt is £13.5m as loans have been converted to shares

2 - our current directors in the main

[Jinky67]

15 minutes ago, DMCs said:

1 - not necessarily. Our debt is £13.5m as loans have been converted to shares

2 - our current directors in the main

So really last seasons losses would have amounted to 43 million + if not for the 21 million additional funding provided by directors and shareholders. Suggests to me the directors pockets aren’t deep enough and surely they want some sort of return for that outlay. 

 

[DMCs]

1 minute ago, Jinky67 said:

So really last seasons losses would have amounted to 43 million + if not for the 21 million additional funding provided by directors and shareholders. Suggests to me the directors pockets aren’t deep enough and surely they want some sort of return for that outlay. 

 

Ermm no you've read that completely wrong. No idea where you are getting those figures from.

[Jinky67]

4 minutes ago, DMCs said:

Ermm no you've read that completely wrong. No idea where you are getting those figures from.

From the Record article linked in the thread.

The suggestion is that Rangers have lost 23.5 million despite additional funding of 21 million provided by directors. If not for that funding the losses would be higher? No? 
 

[Joey Jo Jo Junior Shabadoo]

1 minute ago, Jinky67 said:

From the Record article linked in the thread.

The suggestion is that Rangers have lost 23.5 million despite additional funding of 21 million provided by directors. If not for that funding the losses would be higher? No? 
 

^^^ First Celtic fan in history that doesn’t know how financial statements work.

[DMCs]

2 minutes ago, Jinky67 said:

From the Record article linked in the thread.

The suggestion is that Rangers have lost 23.5 million despite additional funding of 21 million provided by directors. If not for that funding the losses would be higher? No? 
 

Ermmm you aren't making sense on this subject. The additional funding by directors is covering the loss. Just think about what you are saying for a few seconds and it will make sense.

[Jinky67]

5 minutes ago, DMCs said:

Ermmm you aren't making sense on this subject. The additional funding by directors is covering the loss. Just think about what you are saying for a few seconds and it will make sense.

I’m asking a question so as to understand it as the article suggests they relied on 21 million last season from directors in funding and still made a 23 million pound loss.

If that’s not the case cool hence the question.

Either way it seems to spell fucked 

Edited November 6, 2021 by Jinky67