Xtratime Community banner

1 - 20 of 26 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,978 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
Rangers have hailed the recent shares issue to help reduce the club's debt a success. A sum of £51,430,995 has been raised, most of which was subscribed to by Murray International Metals. Their input accounted for £50,275,000, with the fans taking up the rest.

David Murray has stressed that it doesn't mean money will be made available for new players, but that the club now has no reason to sell off their star players. Any money that comes in from players exiting will be available for new players.

Our debt can probably now be classified as manageable in much the same way as Celtic's. Hopefully Murray and co. have learned some valuable lessons about how to run a football club. Another step on the road to reclaiming our rightful place as Scotland's no.1 side. :tongue:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,452 Posts
Successful? Outside of Dodgy Dave only £1m of shares was bought by Rangers fans. Murray has merely transferred the debt to another company. Do you think Murray will pay it all off himself? I don't. I suspect Rangers will be paying this on the QT.

When Celtic's last share issue raised £20m instead of the maximum of £22.5m it was described as a disaster in some Scottish papers and reported as a sign that Celtic fans wouldn't give any more to the club.

I wonder how the press will treat Rangers' share issue falling £7m short of expectations?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,958 Posts
I know as a Celtic supporter it must be a bitter pill to swallow but the facts are this. Murray stepped down as chairman or 2 years while he concentrated on Murray Holdings. We returned as chairman this year when his company was financially sound enough to underwrite up to £50m in buying Rangers shares.

True to his word he has put his money where is mouth is and now controls 91.8% of Rangers Football Club. Rangers now have £51.4m as a result to pay towards their debt. Rangers by the end of the financial year will have a debt of £10m-£15m on top of the assets which they own including Ibrox stadium and the Murray Park training facility. The goal after that is to eradicate the debt.

It would be safe to say that we'll be in a better position than Celtic come June 2005. We've got some money to spend and are already bringing in players while O'Neill tries to convince 5 of his squad this week to stay on a lesser wage. I can see why Celtic supporters would stick their head in the ground about this and look for a downside.

You can argue your own reasons about why Rangers' share issue of £51.4m was not as good as Celtic's share issue of £22.5m. Remember this is our first Share issue whereas Celtic have already had to rely on two and they combination still doesn't reach what Rangers raised.

The fact is this. Rangers fans have the luxury of a Chairman who is helping finance the club. This first share issue was more or less out of the public eye. Celtic's share issue was advertised everywhere you looked. Celtic supporters were bled dry by both share issues. It's not our fault if Celtic fans are daft enough to be duped into spending millions on shares that doesn't get re-invested. I'm sure the £850m Desmond will be pissing himself becaused if they do a third share issue the Celtic fans will do the same again.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,978 Posts
Discussion Starter #4
You've got to remember chivo, it's not gullibility from Celtic fans, it's loyalty :ass: . They've got a reputation to uphold :yuck: . I'm already a shareholder in Rangers, but when they sent the latest share offering through my door, I didn't even open it. I, like so many other Rangers shareholders it seems, didn't believe it was my responsibility to bail the club out of trouble, yet again, because of the mistakes made by Mr. Murray. Having said that, Murray will now regain a lot of his popularity because he's put his money where his mouth is. The £50 odd million Murray put in is no longer on the club's balance sheet, and that is all that matters.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,958 Posts
That's the thing with Murray though. He has admitted he made the mistakes and is now single-handedly rectifying them. Another board board might just keep all the cash for themselves and keep taking more moeny from the fans to pay for their mistakes- not pointing any fingers.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,452 Posts
chivoexpiatorio said:
I know as a Celtic supporter it must be a bitter pill to swallow but the facts are this.
I'm not bothered my ass :finger: I just find it amusing that you are all falling for Dodgy Daves accounting methods, using smoke and mirrors. No debt has been paid off, it's just moved sideways. If there wasn't some crazy shenanigans going on, answer me this simple question - why did Murray not just write a cheque for the debts? Why all this share dealing?

chivoexpiatorio said:
Rangers by the end of the financial year will have a debt of £10m-£15m on top of the assets which they own including Ibrox stadium and the Murray Park training facility. The goal after that is to eradicate the debt.
BBC.co.uk said:
Rangers have raised £51.4m through a recent rights issue, a significant dent in their £74m debt but £6m short of chairman David Murray's target.
According to my arithmetic, £74m - £51.4m = £22.6m. Are you suggesting Rangers will make a profit this year of between £7.6m - £12.6m :howler:

chivoexpiatorio said:
You can argue your own reasons about why Rangers' share issue of £51.4m was not as good as Celtic's share issue of £22.5m. Remember this is our first Share issue whereas Celtic have already had to rely on two and they combination still doesn't reach what Rangers raised.
Again, typical Chivo "I didnae read your post, but this is what I wish you'd said". Read it again, because I never said anything resembling "Rangers' share issue was not as good as Celtic's share issue". Or can't you read properly?

chivoexpiatorio said:
The fact is this. Rangers fans have the luxury of a Chairman who is helping finance the club. This first share issue was more or less out of the public eye. Celtic's share issue was advertised everywhere you looked. Celtic supporters were bled dry by both share issues. It's not our fault if Celtic fans are daft enough to be duped into spending millions on shares that doesn't get re-invested. I'm sure the £850m Desmond will be pissing himself becaused if they do a third share issue the Celtic fans will do the same again.
We'll see what the future holds. Your wonderful chairman led you to incredible debts before, the question is, will he do it again?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,978 Posts
Discussion Starter #7
I thought the point of the share dealing was to give the fans at least a chance to put money into the club. Not an uncommon practice in business, I believe, to underwrite a share issue. That £50 million cannot come back to Rangers, it's really as simple as that. The only way we might be affected is if Murray goes bust and the club has to look for a new owner. Whatever, the £50 million will not be tranferred back onto our accounts.

Also, I can't say I trust the BBC completely. I've read several quotes as to what our debt is. Could it be that you are just highlighting the highest estimate. Actually, well done mince. That's the sort of accounting we want from now on. Prudence is going to play a big part in Rangers future, after all.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,452 Posts
Angle_eyes said:
I thought the point of the share dealing was to give the fans at least a chance to put money into the club.
The "loyal" fans had their chance. They contributed just over £1m.

Angle_eyes said:
Not an uncommon practice in business, I believe, to underwrite a share issue. That £50 million cannot come back to Rangers, it's really as simple as that. The only way we might be affected is if Murray goes bust and the club has to look for a new owner. Whatever, the £50 million will not be tranferred back onto our accounts.
Can you tell me then, just where does this £50m go? Who does pay it off? Have you got an answer to my question from above, "why did Murray not just write a cheque for the debts? Why all this share dealing?"

Angle_eyes said:
Also, I can't say I trust the BBC completely. I've read several quotes as to what our debt is. Could it be that you are just highlighting the highest estimate. Actually, well done mince. That's the sort of accounting we want from now on. Prudence is going to play a big part in Rangers future, after all.
Well, I personally have read figures between £60m and £90m. Again, all down to Dodgy Daves accounting, who really knows the truth?

Here's a quality DD quote:

"What we do have is very strong assets. We have a stadium which is worth anything between £50m and £100m, a training ground worth whatever valuation you want to put on it, a squad worth £20m to £30m."

PMSL :howler: Ibrox worth between £50 & £100m? To who? In sunny industrial Govan? The land is worth approx £2-5m. Maybe Lidl would buy it to build a new store. Who would want a 50,000 all seat stadium in Govan apart from Rangers? As for the squad being worth £20-30m, I'd love to know how that was worked out :howler:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,958 Posts
mincecfc said:
I'm not bothered my ass :finger: I just find it amusing that you are all falling for Dodgy Daves accounting methods, using smoke and mirrors. No debt has been paid off, it's just moved sideways. If there wasn't some crazy shenanigans going on, answer me this simple question - why did Murray not just write a cheque for the debts? Why all this share dealing?
Murray Holdings is not Rangers football club. Murray Holdings bought shares in Rangers worth £50m. You may see that as just moving the debt sideways but if you see that as a problem for Rangers then you should know that is a problem for Celtic- "You don’t know how lucky you are with Dermot Desmond," Quinn said at the agm. "He subscribed to £18million of our last share issue".

If the debt was now with Murray Holding then how would that be a problem to Rangers and why would it be a concern of any Rangers fan? As far as we are concerned the Rangers accounts are all we are interested. It wasn't the case anyway as Murray Holdings can easy underwrite £50m.

mincecfc said:
According to my arithmetic, £74m - £51.4m = £22.6m. Are you suggesting Rangers will make a profit this year of between £7.6m - £12.6m :howler:
According to your favourite rag, The Herald, that is what the debt will be down to by June. So either that is a good source to take from or it's only a good source when it shows Celtic in a good light- you choose.

mincecfc said:
Again, typical Chivo "I didnae read your post, but this is what I wish you'd said". Read it again, because I never said anything resembling "Rangers' share issue was not as good as Celtic's share issue". Or can't you read properly?
So what were you implying saying Scottish papers referred to Celtic's share issue as a disaster but wondering how they will react to Rangers? Either you think Celtic's was better or we are back to the Celtic paranoia thing again.

mincecfc said:
We'll see what the future holds. Your wonderful chairman led you to incredible debts before, the question is, will he do it again?
Yes the chairman spent big and at no cost to us at the time we enjoyed 9-in-a-row. It was a good decade. In that same time Celtic fans were having to dig deep into their own pockets to support an unsuccessful team. Our chairman now is handling that debt single handed but no doubt the Celtic board will be asking the Celtic fans to bail them out again some time soon- Suckers! :happy:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,978 Posts
Discussion Starter #10
I've already commented as to why the fans didn't contribute more. Basically, we're not as blind as some supporter's of other teams. Murray was obvioulsy hoping some of the burden would be taken off him, but as I said, he got what he deserved.

I'm guessing the money has been transferred to MIM's accounts. Murray can pretty much do as he wishes with the company, and does not have to justify his actions to the stock markets.

As for the valuation of Ibrox, I take it you've not seen the trophy room? And if the casino/hotel project actually happens, i'm sure Govan will become a trendy area of the city. :cool:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,452 Posts
Angle_eyes said:
As for the valuation of Ibrox, I take it you've not seen the trophy room? And if the casino/hotel project actually happens, i'm sure Govan will become a trendy area of the city. :cool:
Govan a trendy area of the city? PMSL you've got to be joking, right? And, please enlighten me as to what is in the Trophy Room (apart from cobwebs :proud: ) that makes Ibrox worth £50-£100m to another buyer
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,978 Posts
Discussion Starter #12
I wasn't actually serious mincer...

So I take it, from your ever so subtle highlighting of another buyer that you think Murray will go bust at some point :howler: . Maybe, but are we to trust the intuition of a guy who informed us that Celtic would have "£28 million" to spend next summer?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,958 Posts
mincecfc said:
Can you tell me then, just where does this £50m go? Who does pay it off? Have you got an answer to my question from above, "why did Murray not just write a cheque for the debts? Why all this share dealing?"
It's underwritten by Murray Holdings. Murray Holdings can afford to underwrite £50m. As Angle says it's off Rangers' books, so what point are you trying to make?

Why would Murray write a check and get nothing in return? He all but owns Rangers Football Club now. Rather than ask "Why all the share dealing?" at Rangers ask yourself why Desmond went down the same route? I didn't see him writing any cheques for his £18m with nothing in return, where did that money go?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,958 Posts
Angle_eyes said:
I wasn't actually serious mincer...

So I take it, from your ever so subtle highlighting of another buyer that you think Murray will go bust at some point :howler: . Maybe, but are we to trust the intuition of a guy who informed us that Celtic would have "£28 million" to spend next summer?
Intersting point. Hopefully we'll all be here in the summer and we can analyse who was closest. Will Rangers debt be £7.6m-12.6m or will Celtic have £28m to spend on new players?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,452 Posts
Angle_eyes said:
I wasn't actually serious mincer...

So I take it, from your ever so subtle highlighting of another buyer that you think Murray will go bust at some point :howler: . Maybe, but are we to trust the intuition of a guy who informed us that Celtic would have "£28 million" to spend next summer?
Tell me then, what is the point of valuing the stadium as an asset? Unless it is for insurance purposes. As a liquifiable asset, it's worth next to fcuk all.

And, as I pointed out, the £28m figure was revised to £20m and wasn't reported by me, but by www.celticquicknews.com, I merely copy/pasted the article.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,978 Posts
Discussion Starter #16
The stadium is an asset. I'm not an expert in valuing property, but your scepticism as to the valuation appears well-founded. But again, it's not something Rangers fans are going to worry about. We are never likely to be in the position where we have to finance the club against its assets. Therefore, the hypothetical value that Murray has quoted will never be tested.

And, as I pointed out, the £28m figure was revised to £20m and wasn't reported by me, but by www.celticquicknews.com, I merely copy/pasted the article.
Well you obviously believed there was some element of truth to it or you wouldn't have posted it. And do you still stick with the £20 million estimate then, because from what Quinn has been saying recently it doesn't appear likely.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,452 Posts
I have had my doubts about it since I initially read it. I read another article on that site recently and I'll copy it below:

"Salary Budget for next season

Lots of talk this week about budget for the playing staff. I will wait until after the six month results are published next month before doing a complete budget for next season, however, people have been asking for more info about wage costs, so I’ll cover this now.

I have broken the existing players into three groups;

Out of contract and likely to be leaving
Out of contract and might be leaving
Under contract and likely to be leaving

Out of contract and likely to be leaving or already away are:

Sylla, Valgaeren, Douglas, Camara, Balde, Lambert, Petta

I know the Balde situation is still to be confirmed, but the more I think about it, the less I think we will see the big man here next season. You will get no change out of £9m to pay the wages of the above.

Out of contract and might be leaving are:

Hartson and Lennon

The fact the Sutton and Thompson were sorted last season makes me think that Hartson and Lennon are still under consideration. I expect them to be offered smaller contracts. At the moment they are costing around £3.5m between them.

Under contract and likely to be leaving are:

Juninho, Fernandez, Laursen

These three, along with Headman, will be in the final year of their contracts. As such they might be offered Petta like inducements to move on. Without Headman they are costing £3.5m per year, on balance I expect Headman to stay. Martin is likely to only want to shop for one keeper in the summer.

Only Hartson, Lennon and Balde are current first team players. I have a special place in my heart for each player; however, the lack of a deal suggests that they might be moving on. I have excluded McNamara from this as I do not think there is any doubt he will be here next season.

There goes a full £16m from our £40m wage bill, any suggestions as to what we could do with that kind of money? Times they are a changing."
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,978 Posts
Discussion Starter #18
Fair enough, but I don't like to see money for wages being lumped in as a transfer budget. I know we're doing it too, but it makes it a bit harder to work out how much will actually go on tranfer fees. I'm guessing that the article is saying that you'll have a free £16m to put towards fees and wages. Given the amount of players you'll be losing it seems that you'll be going after Bosmans then rather than contracted players?

Say for arguments sake, you'll be looking for around 7 players between now and the summer. It's likely that most, if not all, of that £16m will be taken up by these players wages for the next year. Am I looking at this the right way? There's nothing wrong with going for Bosman's, but it could prove difficult to find so many who a) are quality players, and b) are willing to play in Scotland for Celtic.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,452 Posts
In today's football climate, especially in Scotland, I think it is madness to pay transfer fees, especially anything over £1m.

The £28m figure from the article posted before is not transfer budget, it is a prediction of what our profit & loss account can accept.

Finance is highly complicated and if I was any fekkin good at it, I wouldn't be hangin around in here talking to you fekkin losers :shades: I don't fully understand what is going on. I know that Celtic's high purchase cost players ie Lennon, Hartson, Sutton, Valgaeren and Thompson will all be fully depreciated on the profit and loss a/c which will take something like £11m out of the loss side of the account. Which can only be good news.

Celtic have had great success out of the purchase of these players. It cost us a lot but we won a lot and progressed in Europe. Now, the time has come to rebuild and this depreciation of playing assets hopefully will allow us to do just that.

We'll need to wait and see.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,978 Posts
Discussion Starter #20
Given that you've admitted to not being good at finance, I think we'll be using my interpretation on financial matters from now on. :nerd: :shades: :cool:
I think the £16 million will already have taken into account the depreciation of Valgaeren's contract. Also, why will Sutton's contract be fully depreciated? Hasn't he got a few years to go yet? Ditto for Thompson.
 
1 - 20 of 26 Posts
Top