RANGERS launch an investigation after it emerged Mike Ashley now owns the club badges

[barca72 440]

If they're not overly worried about every single income stream and how to maximise them then they're not doing their jobs correctly.

 

 

 

As I said deals like these are Ashley's day job.

 

 

 

As you've already acknowledged the "interest free" comes at a cost a cost in all probability far in excess of commercial rates of interest. Of course there will be a clearout as there's 12 players out of contract, however we won't be spunking £5m buying "us a couple of good players."

 

 

 

That assumes Ashley/SD operate and think in a normal logical manner nothing that has happened so far backs up that assumption.

 

There is no need for a worldwide retail chain to sell our merchandise as there is no worldwide demand for it outside some isolated pockets of ex-pats.

 

 

 

I say Rangers cannot be patient because it's clearly a fact that they cannot. They refused the second £5m loan because the terms were too onerous and we would have been beholden to SD for eternity if they had done that and forever in their mercy.

 

The 3B's ponied up £1.5m because that was what was needed to keep the lights on and will in all probability have to do so again.

 

 

 

They can but that'll take years to bear any fruit and in the meantime there is an inherent structural deficit to be filled in on an ongoing basis. You do realise you're advocating that the Board maintain an onerous contract by not rushing to pay him back?

 

 

Most of what you are speaking about here comes down to getting the RR deal re-negotiated. What are we looking at - 26% of a deal that probably means about £100,000 p.a. , assuming we are not charged for overstock - as against interest on a £5M loan until 2017. Not that much difference, eh? If SD do not wish to renegotiate the RR deal then yes I'm advocating that this loan be maintained until we get to the end of the deal. If we pay SD now, what leverage do we have that they would be interested in? So I think the board will be trying to maximise this income stream as best they can, and yet not be beholden to the man. If we wish to wait until 2017 to pay it back, we may be in Europe then and have those extra revenues, then to whom is the debt more onerous?

I disagree with you about buying a few players this summer, to me that is a given - or else no increased ST sales.

I guess I'm being reduced to an isolated pocket of ex-pats. I don't know if you have looked at the organizations that are NARSA( coast to coast in US & Canada ) & ORSA( not sure myself the geography or demographics ), and then consider the size of the membership in each club and then consider the multiple buys by each member. I haven't bought anything since SD squeezed us and won't until Rangers are satisfied with their side of the deal.

What is the inherent structural deficit to be filled in on an ongoing basis? Apart from the merchandizing side I am sure there are other revenue streams which the board will look at enhancing. Also, I would think they would get around to some discussions with the gardeners.

I do get the feeling, though, that this board will not cut off its nose to spite its face.

[SteveC 150]

Interesting points, barca72, but the idea of us gaining revenue from Europe in 2017 seems wildly optimistic to me. To do that we'd have to:

 

get into the top division

get into a Europa qualifying spot

get through the qualifiers to the Europa League

make money from the Europa league (not that easy to do and not significantly unless you go to the late stages)

 

or

 

get into the top division

win it

get through the qualifiers to the Champions League

 

If we do the latter this decade it will be quite an achievement from where we currently are. Some of our best sides when we could attract top class players never got through Euro qualifying rounds.

[barca72 440]

Interesting points, barca72, but the idea of us gaining revenue from Europe in 2017 seems wildly optimistic to me. To do that we'd have to:

 

get into the top division

get into a Europa qualifying spot

get through the qualifiers to the Europa League

make money from the Europa league (not that easy to do and not significantly unless you go to the late stages)

 

or

 

get into the top division

win it

get through the qualifiers to the Champions League

 

If we do the latter this decade it will be quite an achievement from where we currently are. Some of our best sides when we could attract top class players never got through Euro qualifying rounds.

 

Agreed, but there is still the chance (being optimistic).

[forlanssister 3,114]

Most of what you are speaking about here comes down to getting the RR deal re-negotiated. What are we looking at - 26% of a deal that probably means about £100,000 p.a. , assuming we are not charged for overstock - as against interest on a £5M loan until 2017. Not that much difference, eh?

 

So you think our retail profits are £400k?

 

 

If SD do not wish to renegotiate the RR deal then yes I'm advocating that this loan be maintained until we get to the end of the deal. If we pay SD now, what leverage do we have that they would be interested in? So I think the board will be trying to maximise this income stream as best they can, and yet not be beholden to the man. If we wish to wait until 2017 to pay it back, we may be in Europe then and have those extra revenues, then to whom is the debt more onerous?

 

They have at present the security over the Albion, Murray Park and Edminston House probably circa £18m and the trademarks. a consequence of Ashley being in control of those assets is that we can no longer use them as a means of raising finance, that's f*&king leverage. Oh and come 2017 SD get the money from our shirt sponsorship deal which the last time we were in the top league was worth £1.2m per annum.

 

I disagree with you about buying a few players this summer, to me that is a given - or else no increased ST sales.

 

As I previously stated of course we'll be signing players this summer given 12 are out of contract what we won't be doing is spunking £5m on "a couple of players" that notion is simply silly.

 

 

I guess I'm being reduced to an isolated pocket of ex-pats. I don't know if you have looked at the organizations that are NARSA( coast to coast in US & Canada ) & ORSA( not sure myself the geography or demographics ), and then consider the size of the membership in each club and then consider the multiple buys by each member. I haven't bought anything since SD squeezed us and won't until Rangers are satisfied with their side of the deal.

 

Is NARSA membership expanding or declining? All I was hearing at the last few Convention's I've attended was how the clubs were struggling with declining memberships and rising costs. Rangers TV can't even approach break even let alone make a profit.

 

 

What is the inherent structural deficit to be filled in on an ongoing basis? Apart from the merchandizing side I am sure there are other revenue streams which the board will look at enhancing. Also, I would think they would get around to some discussions with the gardeners.

I do get the feeling, though, that this board will not cut off its nose to spite its face.

 

We're losing well over £500k per month believe it or not that is an inherent structural deficit and strangely enough it has to be covered on an ongoing basis otherwise the doors close and the lights get switched off.

[trublusince1982 243]

So you think our retail profits are £400k?

 

 

 

 

They have at present the security over the Albion, Murray Park and Edminston House probably circa £18m and the trademarks. a consequence of Ashley being in control of those assets is that we can no longer use them as a means of raising finance, that's f*&king leverage. Oh and come 2017 SD get the money from our shirt sponsorship deal which the last time we were in the top league was worth £1.2m per annum.

 

 

 

As I previously stated of course we'll be signing players this summer given 12 are out of contract what we won't be doing is spunking £5m on "a couple of players" that notion is simply silly.

 

 

 

 

Is NARSA membership expanding or declining? All I was hearing at the last few Convention's I've attended was how the clubs were struggling with declining memberships and rising costs. Rangers TV can't even approach break even let alone make a profit.

 

 

 

 

We're losing well over £500k per month believe it or not that is an inherent structural deficit and strangely enough it has to be covered on an ongoing basis otherwise the doors close and the lights get switched off.

the avenues for raising cash are limited to say the least.

thats a major reason i see paying off ashley as impossible at this time.

they need to maximise revenue. the only available option left is through ticket sales. to maximise that they need to be seen as opening their wallets. must admit to being very worried right now. there doesnt seem to be much movement or commitment to any direction. As the weeks go by the excuse of needing to go through the contracts first grows weaker and weaker. cant see how the club accountants couldnt explain the available incomes within a couple of weeks

.If the short and medium term direction is dependant on renewing or challenging contracts then we dont have enough available funding.

if we had£20-30m available we would be fixing the known faults ie the football infrastructure knowing the present income levels and funding would be suficiant to see us through to 2017

Edited April 13, 2015 by trublusince1982

[forlanssister 3,114]

the avenues for raising cash are limited to say the least.

 

Indeed and SD loan is perhaps the greatest limiting factor in that particular area.

 

thats a major reason i see paying off ashley as impossible at this time.

 

It's one of the reasons I see it as an imperative.

 

they need to maximise revenue. the only available option left is through ticket sales. to maximise that they need to be seen as opening their wallets. must admit to being very worried right now. there doesnt seem to be much movement or commitment to any direction.

 

In regards to next season's season ticket sales they're at the mercy of circumstances outwith their control namely the league we'll be playing and ergo the price the punters will be willing to pay. As to them opening their wallets I'm sure they'll realise that they have to do that in order for the punters to do likewise. I imagine we'll be hearing something on that score soon enough.

 

 

As the weeks go by the excuse of needing to go through the contracts first grows weaker and weaker. cant see how the club accountants couldnt explain the available incomes within a couple of weeks.

 

Depends what they find as some things aren't always as clear cut as we'd like them to be.

 

If the short and medium term direction is dependant on renewing or challenging contracts then we dont have enough available funding.

if we had£20-30m available we would be fixing the known faults ie the football infrastructure knowing the present income levels and funding would be suficiant to see us through to 2017

 

It's been crystal clear for long enough that we don't have enough funding hence the need for all the loans in order to meet the payroll.

 

We don't need £20-30m available at once and every man and his dog knows our present income and funding levels are insufficient to see us through to 2016 let alone 2017.

[trublusince1982 243]

Indeed and SD loan is perhaps the greatest limiting factor in that particular area.

 

 

 

It's one of the reasons I see it as an imperative.

 

 

 

In regards to next season's season ticket sales they're at the mercy of circumstances outwith their control namely the league we'll be playing and ergo the price the punters will be willing to pay. As to them opening their wallets I'm sure they'll realise that they have to do that in order for the punters to do likewise. I imagine we'll be hearing something on that score soon enough.

 

 

 

 

Depends what they find as some things aren't always as clear cut as we'd like them to be.

 

 

 

It's been crystal clear for long enough that we don't have enough funding hence the need for all the loans in order to meet the payroll.

 

We don't need £20-30m available at once and every man and his dog knows our present income and funding levels are insufficient to see us through to 2016 let alone 2017.

sorry when i say funding i mean the money king and co will put in not our income streams.. If they know our income levels then there should be no need to delay investment, if indeed they have £5-£6m from king each year to play with before the 3b put in anything. Its easy enough to say king will cover the known deficit then and the 3bs will put up x amount to fund x y and z improvements.

 

they have already stated failure to go up a league will not hurt their plans(not sure how that works personally) so they must therefore already have worked out a strategy that doesnt include the income levels needing to rise on last year. That would make me believe they intend to fund improvements without using any of the clubs typical income streams to supplement them. So really dont see what the delay is. If king will invest either as a director or not.

 

dont think the league will determine the cost of the season ticket .finances dictate that the increase must happen either way. Think PM has already alluded to this in his interviews highlighting the fact hibs st are already on sale.As you say we will find out soon. when is the play off final? had a look at the spfl website but doesnt make a lot of sense! the spfl playoff final is a different date than the championship final so not sure which one is which. Either way do you think renewal could wait that long before commencing? wouldnt we need another loan to see us through to that date if we dont know what league we are in until the end of may?

[forlanssister 3,114]

sorry when i say funding i mean the money king and co will put in not our income streams.. If they know our income levels then there should be no need to delay investment, if indeed they have £5-£6m from king each year to play with before the 3b put in anything. Its easy enough to say king will cover the known deficit then and the 3bs will put up x amount to fund x y and z improvements.

 

That's easy enough to say if you discount the existing £6.5m of loans. Repaying them will probably take most of what can be raised by issuing the unissued shares.

 

they have already stated failure to go up a league will not hurt their plans(not sure how that works personally) so they must therefore already have worked out a strategy that doesnt include the income levels needing to rise on last year. That would make me believe they intend to fund improvements without using any of the clubs typical income streams to supplement them. So really dont see what the delay is. If king will invest either as a director or not.

 

The league we play will impact on their plans however it won't derail them. Every income stream and more will have to be utilised over the next 3 (at least) seasons. There is absolutely no reason for King to link his (potential) investment in the club to his position as a Director or not, his absence from contributing to the last loan was strange to say the least and the reasoning allegedly behind that decision holds no water.

 

dont think the league will determine the cost of the season ticket .finances dictate that the increase must happen either way. Think PM has already alluded to this in his interviews highlighting the fact hibs st are already on sale.As you say we will find out soon. when is the play off final? had a look at the spfl website but doesnt make a lot of sense! the spfl playoff final is a different date than the championship final so not sure which one is which. Either way do you think renewal could wait that long before commencing? wouldnt we need another loan to see us through to that date if we dont know what league we are in until the end of may?

 

Of course the league we play in will play a factor in determinating both the price of season tickets and the potential sales (2 guaranteed games against them would be a factor in both sides season ticket sales). Yes we'd probably need mother top up loan till the season ticket monies started to flow in.

[barca72 440]

So you think our retail profits are £400k?

 

 

 

 

They have at present the security over the Albion, Murray Park and Edminston House probably circa £18m and the trademarks. a consequence of Ashley being in control of those assets is that we can no longer use them as a means of raising finance, that's f*&king leverage. Oh and come 2017 SD get the money from our shirt sponsorship deal which the last time we were in the top league was worth £1.2m per annum.

 

 

 

As I previously stated of course we'll be signing players this summer given 12 are out of contract what we won't be doing is spunking £5m on "a couple of players" that notion is simply silly.

 

 

 

 

Is NARSA membership expanding or declining? All I was hearing at the last few Convention's I've attended was how the clubs were struggling with declining memberships and rising costs. Rangers TV can't even approach break even let alone make a profit.

 

 

 

 

We're losing well over £500k per month believe it or not that is an inherent structural deficit and strangely enough it has to be covered on an ongoing basis otherwise the doors close and the lights get switched off.

 

http://www.heraldscotland.com/sport/football/gers-agree-10m-sports-direct-loan.1422345334

 

If you agree that under this deal we (the club) get approx. 25% of the profits then this line answers where I get £400K from, what do you get?

..."RRL will declare a dividend of a total of £1,610,000 prior to the Transfer."

In post #72 you said more or less that you didn't want us to accept financial debt for "spunking" on players and yet here you are advocating, rather strongly, that we need our assets unencumbered so that we can use them to raise financing. What's it to be?

 

This line from the same article kind of belies your statement here ... "The Company has also agreed that from the 2017/8 season, for the duration of the Facility, any future shirt sponsorship proceeds will be for the benefit of RRL." Not SD as you state.

If the notion of "spunking £5M on a couple of players" is silly, I'd like to see the quality you would get for us on anything less. Remember we've done the Daly, Boyd, Miller etc. bit.

 

If you are under that understanding about NARSA you are hearing different things than I am. Maybe you should check with NARSA about just how it is they are assisting the clubs to stay healthy. I wouldn't be able to comment on RTV ( I didn't know that RTV would buy merchandise from RR. ).

 

I would accept this figure as I haven't seen anything to the contrary. We can only hope that the new board will find a way to service, or plug, this deep hole.

 

Finally, why do I think Rangers require to be patient? I would say that the original deal as set up by Charles contains a few hooks that we don't want to force SD to sink any deeper. I get the distinct feeling from King that rather than pay Ashley off and cock a snoot at him so to speak, he would rather talk to them and see if he can come up with an equitable solution that suits everyone going forward. It may prove that Ashley can not be dealt with but I think they have to at least try.

[forlanssister 3,114]

http://www.heraldscotland.com/sport/football/gers-agree-10m-sports-direct-loan.1422345334

 

If you agree that under this deal we (the club) get approx. 25% of the profits then this line answers where I get £400K from, what do you get?

..."RRL will declare a dividend of a total of £1,610,000 prior to the Transfer."

 

You claimed £400k per annum not £1.6m

Most of what you are speaking about here comes down to getting the RR deal re-negotiated. What are we looking at - 26% of a deal that probably means about £100,000 p.a.

 

 

In post #72 you said more or less that you didn't want us to accept financial debt for "spunking" on players and yet here you are advocating, rather strongly, that we need our assets unencumbered so that we can use them to raise financing. What's it to be?

 

Been to Murray Park or Ibrox lately or read the forthcoming UEFA regulations? Millions are needed for repairs and upgrades and that's what I'd use the raising of finance against the assets for not spunking on a couple of players.

 

This line from the same article kind of belies your statement here ... "The Company has also agreed that from the 2017/8 season, for the duration of the Facility, any future shirt sponsorship proceeds will be for the benefit of RRL." Not SD as you state.

 

It may have escaped you but SD own 76% of Rangers Retail Limited.

 

 

If the notion of "spunking £5M on a couple of players" is silly, I'd like to see the quality you would get for us on anything less. Remember we've done the Daly, Boyd, Miller etc. bit.

 

Better get used to the notion being silly as we won't be spending 7 figure sums on players anytime soon as it'll be Bosman's and low cost young players for the foreseeable future. We'll be selling players for £2.5m long, long before we'll be buying them.

 

 

I would accept this figure as I haven't seen anything to the contrary. We can only hope that the new board will find a way to service, or plug, this deep hole.

 

Well they won't do it while giving 76% of mechandising profits and shirt sponsorship money direct to Sports Direct.

 

Finally, why do I think Rangers require to be patient? I would say that the original deal as set up by Charles contains a few hooks that we don't want to force SD to sink any deeper. I get the distinct feeling from King that rather than pay Ashley off and cock a snoot at him so to speak, he would rather talk to them and see if he can come up with an equitable solution that suits everyone going forward. It may prove that Ashley can not be dealt with but I think they have to at least try.

 

Such is the contract that all that will do is trigger the clause that allows SD to buy out Rangers share for 50% of the previous 12 months profits, a scenario which in all probability Ashley is trying to engineer.