Deserted seats show reality of angry Rangers fans voting with their feet

[pmu 0]

Thats Jim Mcoll well and truly out of the picture. Looks like he's sinking his wad into another Clydeside fiasco.

[the gunslinger 3,366]

You think the board would have said - after a possible 20k or less STs sales for a season in Division One - go ahead Ally and sign 9 players?

 

Given our 5 signings this season. Yes of course.

[craig 5,199]

dB certainly has a point regards Celt@c's lower crowds and the fact it isn't reported. Has anyone tried to work out how much it's costing them without us in the top division? Let's assume their average league crowds are down somewhere in the region 15k to 20k (I'd say nearer 20k as there's no OF games) but we'll go for a figure of say 18k. Let's do some maths:-

 

18,000 X average cost of ticket X no of home league games. (Let's use figure of £25 for ticket)

 

18,000 X 25 X 18 = £8.1million per season

 

That figure does not include hospitality, sponsorships etc they may have lost as well as others these 'lost' supporters would buy on match days such as food, programmes etc. The £8.1m figure will be well over £10m IMO. In other words they need the CL group stages just to make up this loss. You won't see this reported in the DR and such like will you?

 

Why would we work out what it is costing them ? Does it translate into more money or cost savings for Rangers ? No, it doesn't. Therefore I couldn't care less.

 

The sad reality is that negative news makes better headlines. Their financial situation, on the face of things, is nowhere near as critical as ours. Hence we will continue to be the headline makers in negative financial news.

 

Personally, I find us Rangers fans that want to make comparisons with Celtic are simply looking for a comfort blanket. "Our finances might not be healthy but neither are theirs". I don't care about Celtic's finances, I really don't. And I don't think any of us should. The ONLY thing that should matter to us is Rangers.

[craig 5,199]

You probably misread/-understood that. So again: Had there been a similar stand-off last season from April onwards, would you think we would have signed those 9 freebies et al? And that with Division One crowds to look forward to and the squad of the previous season? I think not.

 

Do you think we will survive the season as we are currently operating ?

 

If anything we are in a worse position now than we were last season - yet you make an attempt to make things look as if they have improved.

 

And as for signing "9 freebies et al" you do remember that Craig Whyte was giving Steven Whittaker a vastly increased wage at the same time as refusing to pay PAYE & NIC right ? Signing players doesn't mean you have the means to do so. Sometimes people DO rob Peter to pay Paul...

[Tannochsidebear 2,405]

Why would we work out what it is costing them ? Does it translate into more money or cost savings for Rangers ? No, it doesn't. Therefore I couldn't care less.

 

The sad reality is that negative news makes better headlines. Their financial situation, on the face of things, is nowhere near as critical as ours. Hence we will continue to be the headline makers in negative financial news.

 

Personally, I find us Rangers fans that want to make comparisons with Celtic are simply looking for a comfort blanket. "Our finances might not be healthy but neither are theirs". I don't care about Celtic's finances, I really don't. And I don't think any of us should. The ONLY thing that should matter to us is Rangers.

 

While I agree with you up to a point, there can be no denying that the finances of our rivals are very important to our fortunes as a club, and even more so from next season onwards when we are expected to be competing with them for the title. If their finances are being affected as the earlier poster estimates, that is very good news for us, as it means the gap between us going into next season will be considerably less than it otherwise would be.

 

I would love to go back to the 86-98 period where our finances were in much better order than theirs which gave us an advantage on the pitch as well, and our team did the rest. As it stands we are miles behind our rivals in every department, which really hurts, so while you are right to say it is being used as a comfort blanket, it is pretty much all that is comfortable with our current situation and we can no longer afford ourselves the right of ignoring our rivals financial fortunes.

[RANGERRAB 3,653]

Why would we work out what it is costing them ? Does it translate into more money or cost savings for Rangers ? No, it doesn't. Therefore I couldn't care less.

 

The sad reality is that negative news makes better headlines. Their financial situation, on the face of things, is nowhere near as critical as ours. Hence we will continue to be the headline makers in negative financial news.

 

Personally, I find us Rangers fans that want to make comparisons with Celtic are simply looking for a comfort blanket. "Our finances might not be healthy but neither are theirs". I don't care about Celtic's finances, I really don't. And I don't think any of us should. The ONLY thing that should matter to us is Rangers.

 

All businesses should endeavour to know the financial health of their competitors.

All I'm suggesting is our absence from the top division is having a bigger effect on them than some prepared to admit. When we got put in SFL3 was it not said Liewell wanted us kept in top division but with points deductions in forthcoming seasons?

Perhaps these figures explain why. I'd reckon our absence will have cost them circa £30M...

[Hildy 0]

I don't think we can look at our situation in isolation. What goes on across the city at Celtic should be our concern too because Celtic is the one force in Scottish football that can crush our dreams, destroy our aspirations and inhibit our progress.

 

They have suffered dreadfully with reduced attendances but regular participation in the CL has made up for the shortfall and they are favourites to become part of the gravy train once again. With luck, Maribor will surprise them but I'm not betting on it.

 

If we are poor and struggling and they are solvent and healthy, we know that this will have a significant effect on what happens on the pitch.

 

I just wish we knew Celtic's financial details as well as they seem to know ours.

[Rangersitis 0]

I don't think we can look at our situation in isolation. What goes on across the city at Celtic should be our concern too because Celtic is the one force in Scottish football that can crush our dreams, destroy our aspirations and inhibit our progress.

 

They have suffered dreadfully with reduced attendances but regular participation in the CL has made up for the shortfall and they are favourites to become part of the gravy train once again. With luck, Maribor will surprise them but I'm not betting on it.

 

If we are poor and struggling and they are solvent and healthy, we know that this will have a significant effect on what happens on the pitch.

 

I just wish we knew Celtic's financial details as well as they seem to know ours.

 

Unless you have a cunning plan, there is only one part of that scenario which can be influenced by the Rangers support. There is far too much obsessing done over them and their actions.

[calscot 0]

While I think our absence is costing them, I think that they have had some compensations to offset this with more European money than they'd normally expect and the strange valuations of their players sales. At the same time their board seem to have cut their cloth to suit the lower income and they don't seem to be increasing their debt.

 

However, this may be backfiring with lower attendances and season tickets this year - although I've no idea of the actual figures.

 

But what history has shown is that finances as football teams tend to spend what they earn and don't "save" money, they are only ever as wealthy as their last few seasons' income and so it can take just a few years for peer clubs of similar size to catch back up financially.

 

We've seen it with us with Holmes, Celtic with the Bunnet, and we see it all the time in the EPL.

 

The exceptions are investment in infrastructure and the other side of the coin, the accumulated debt and its servicing costs. That is why not increasing their debt is important for the future when we are back at the top.

 

We should have been (and may still be) of a position where we return without debt and with our stadium and training facilities intact. We may need a lot of spending on the stadium but it's not of the same order of cost as replacing a stand etc. However, the bill is increasing and it looks like we're increasing our debt just to pay our running costs. On the flip side we have the offer of a £50m investment when back in the top tier - something they could probably match a fraction of to keep pace.

 

It seems to me that if we were well managed it wouldn't take us long to be back on a level footing and that's where the current board may be harming our medium term future. We can't afford to get into debt or allow maintenance and renovation of Ibrox to become damaging to the operational budget.

 

Other than that we will quickly need the resources and a manager who can overcome them in the league and qualify for the CL group stages - every second year anyway, despite the initial gap. That's where a a pretty large, soft investment will be needed.

[der Berliner 3,743]

Do you think we will survive the season as we are currently operating ?

 

If anything we are in a worse position now than we were last season - yet you make an attempt to make things look as if they have improved.

 

And as for signing "9 freebies et al" you do remember that Craig Whyte was giving Steven Whittaker a vastly increased wage at the same time as refusing to pay PAYE & NIC right ? Signing players doesn't mean you have the means to do so. Sometimes people DO rob Peter to pay Paul...

 

I'll reply in vice versa direction ...

 

At the time (pre-CL & EL exit), Whyte might have been thinking that he had or will have the money. How do you know at which point he stopped paying PAYE and NIC? Essentially irrelevant, but in any case: it is not one single person making decisions these days and those who do have money-men behind them who do not want to lose money should the club go to the wall. I reckon they'll draw and quarter Nash and Wallace should they do anything as silly.

 

Rangers have hardly ever in modern history worked as a profitable or let's say break-even company. Hardly any "greater" club does that, not to speak of one in a surrounding like ours. The IPO money should have been used fundamentally different than it apparently was and people should actually be chase legally here - if this will ever be cleared up. That does not exactly change the position of the current board. They will have a business plan that is sure to still make a loss after this season, but one that will be less than last season's. And so it will go on, with the only question be: who will balance the debt for the time being? Investors? Ashley? A share issue? A credit facility with a bank willing to deal with us? (That is actually still some sort of mystery.)

To turn this on its head, does anyone actually think that ... should a King arrive, Rangers will in say 4 years time break even or become profitable ... excluding European football for the moment?

 

Where did I say that things have improved? This essentially turns my remark on its head. I said we'd be in even greater bother had the boycott happened last year, with at least two more years below the top tier in front of us as compared to know. That is not to say that things have turned to the better now, but that things might have panned out worse. It is still dire nonetheless.