Rangers will only be able to play in Europe next season if UEFA grant special...

[ian1964 10,546]

...over Financial Fair Play rules.

 

The European governing body's club licensing rules say losses over three years must be no more than £4.265million - and Gers' figures significantly exceed that.

 

ByEwing Grahame

 

06:00, 30 NOV 2016Updated20:15, 29 NOV 2016

 

Rangers will have to ask UEFA for special dispensation to play in Europe next season due to their failure to meet Financial Fair Play regulations.

 

Club licensing rules state that losses over the most recent three-year period shouldn’t exceed £4,265,000 – and Gers have lost £18.9million since 2014.

 

UEFA do allow a deficit during that time frame to reach £25.9million but only “if such excess is entirely covered by contributions from equity participants and/or related parties”.

 

Chairman Dave King claimed at last week’s AGM that “securing European football is critical”.

 

But an SFA source confirmed that Rangers would need to prove to UEFA that they can reduce their losses and continue as a going concern if they qualify for Europe.

 

He said: “I suspect that UEFA would grant special dispensation to them because there have been several instances of other clubs, in similar circumstances, being permitted to participate.

 

“What they would certainly do is ask Rangers to provide independently confirmed, detailed information about their finances as well as their plans to become financially sustainable.”

 

Rangers’ latest accounts disclosed they had required £2.9m in soft loans from directors since the end of the financial year and that more will be needed to complete the current campaign.

 

Further losses could be incurred, with Mike Ashley taking the club to court in London tomorrow and Friday, claiming £1m in damages for an alleged breach of contract with his Sports Direct outfit.

 

Rangers’ situation wasn’t helped when, at last week’s AGM, they failed to gain enough votes to pass a special resolution which would have allowed them to raise fresh funds by selling additional shares to outside investors without first offering them to current shareholders.

 

In March, Galatasaray were banned from European competitions until 2018 for breaching Financial Fair Play regulations.

 

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/rangers-only-able-play-europe-9360873

[der Berliner 3,399]

What qualifies as a "going concern"? I was under the impression that this is only relevant if a club is floated on the stock exchange? Likewise, I find it quite amusing (in a sarcastic way) that we should be targetted with this, while Spanish clubs as well as the English ones carry debts that reach 100s of million.

 

Anyhow, I wonder how they come up with "losses" of 18.4m when these are essentially debts to or loans by directors etc., rather than any bank debt that will claw it back. But someone will sure give a more detailed analysis.

[boabie 230]

" Rangers would need to prove to UEFA that they can reduce their losses and continue as a going concern if they qualify for Europe. "

 

Given the amount of thieving and other such jiggery-pokery that's gone on within our club that shouldn't be too hard to prove. Those responsible have gone.

[boabie 230]

What qualifies as a "going concern"? I was under the impression that this is only relevant if a club is floated on the stock exchange? Likewise, I find it quite amusing (in a sarcastic way) that we should be targetted with this, while Spanish clubs as well as the English ones carry debts that reach 100s of million.

 

Anyhow, I wonder how they come up with "losses" of 18.4m when these are essentially debts to or loans by directors etc., rather than any bank debt that will claw it back. But someone will sure give a more detailed analysis.

 

It's another Record non-story mate. The shettlestons are the only ones who'll buy that nonsense.

[der Berliner 3,399]

Snatched some info from FF:

 

3) Are clubs no longer allowed to have losses?

 

To be exact, clubs can spend up to €5million more than they earn per assessment period (three years). However it can exceed this level to a certain limit, if it is entirely covered by a direct contribution/payment from the club owner(s) or a related party. This prevents the build-up of unsustainable debt.

 

The limits are:

• €45m for assessment periods 2013/14 and 2014/15

• €30m for assessment periods 2015/16, 2016/17 and 2017/18

 

Took me less than 5 minutes to prove that this story is a pile of peado fantasy shite.

 

It's bullshit and it's yet another attempt of this paper to deflect from other issues in Scottish football that are breaking.

 

You are allowed to put in 15m per season to cover losses until 2018/19 also costs for repair and upkeep of stadia and training facilities are not counted towards breaking even.

 

We won't be affected as we have no debt and our losses are not huge.

 

Any journo worth their salt just has to look at our losses and the ffp rules it's pure scaremongering.

[ian1964 10,546]

[26th of foot 5,916]

At Ibrox last Saturday, a chap in Bar'72 was wondering aloud, "whatever happened to Ewing Grahame"?

 

I answered, "he's been freelance for a dozen years". Another in the crowd volunteered, "you see his pieces in the Telegraph and Times now and then, usually as a one, two with Phil Gordon". The chorus was, "who hates us the most"? The consensus was wee poison pen Phil; however, I opted for dearest Ewing. I reminded the throng that Rangers got Grahame sacked from the Herald a dozen years past.

 

We were playing Stuttgart in the Gotlieb arena in the Champions League. I was one of 8,000 Bears squeezed mercilessly by German plod into a 3,000 capacity area. It was a poor game on a freezing early December evening, we deservedly lost 1-0. However, Ricksen had an open goal opportunity from six yards, five minutes from time to put us through. Ewing Grahame was dispatched by the Herald on the official Rangers charter to cover the game, he was full of resentment. Ewing hates Rangers, and thought Spiers should have been lumbered with the tedious task of, "H-un reporting". As you can imagine, Spiers was extremely keen to be nowhere near Rangers and Rangers supporters at that point. Ewing was told he was doing it for the paper.

 

Ewing got drunk on the charter on the way out before the game. He continued in the fleshpots of Stuttgart, missed the evening presser and training. Rose late, went back on the batter, arrived at the stadium after kick-off, opened his lap top, and promptly fell asleep in the press box. He was roused after the game and filed his bitter copy, "an overwhelmed Rangers did not create a single opportunity on goal". He fell asleep again, was wakened by a Stuttgart official tidying up the press box, bundled into a taxi to the airport, he boarded the charter to a chorus of boos. The charter had missed it's slot because he was ninety minutes late, and Rangers arrived back into Glasgow at six am.

 

Rangers made an official complaint about his behaviour and conduct. He was sacked, and didn't trap for his subsequent appeal.

 

Whatever became of Ewing Grahame? Clearly, by today's Retard, he continues to do what he has always done. Apparently, even Spiers looks down on him.

[StuGers 477]

Just another article to keep the frothing masses happy. Their time is coming.

[craig 5,199]

What qualifies as a "going concern"? I was under the impression that this is only relevant if a club is floated on the stock exchange? Likewise, I find it quite amusing (in a sarcastic way) that we should be targetted with this, while Spanish clubs as well as the English ones carry debts that reach 100s of million.

 

Anyhow, I wonder how they come up with "losses" of 18.4m when these are essentially debts to or loans by directors etc., rather than any bank debt that will claw it back. But someone will sure give a more detailed analysis.

 

Incorrect dB Re going concern and stock exchange. Going concern is applicable to all companies. Any company that requires an audit (public OR private) will not get sign off from their auditors on their financial statements. Going concern looks to the future viability of the entity to remain in business for a period of time, usually a year but can differ.

 

In the event that a company cannot prove to their auditors that they should be considered a going concern then they will be issued a qualified audit report on the basis that going concern is an issue.

 

Also, your use of "debts" is misleading too. Debts and losses are two completely different things. Debts are a Balance Sheet item whereas the FFP rules in the article stating losses are an income statement item. So you really can't equate the two in terms of FFP - although, that said, the debts would be something that auditors would consider from a "going concern" basis - is the Club able to service the debts for the future 12 months ? If the answer is no, you have a going concern issue.

 

They come up with "losses" of 18.4 million because those would be the losses of the last 3 years - fiscal years ended 2014, 2015 and 2016. Debts are not losses - they appear on two different statements, the former on the Balance Sheet and the latter on the Income Statement (or Profit & Loss Statement). So the losses they come up with are entirely reasonable given our trading positions in the last 3 years.

 

All of the above said, it is a complete non-story. Given UEFA will issue a special license based on “if such excess is entirely covered by contributions from equity participants and/or related parties" - we already know that our equity participants would make up that shortfall in soft loans, as they have already done. Not only that but if you look at our financial statements since the regime change there can be absolutely zero doubt that our losses and our overall financial position have stabilized a great degree and the current regime have proven fiscal prudence.

 

There can be little doubt that UEFA would indeed provide a license under special dispensation. As someone said, a complete non-story that will have the obsessed yahoos slavering, pounding the keyboards with emails to UEFA and crowd-funding more futile efforts in an attempt to have us not obtain a UEFA license - they will be laughed out of Zurich by UEFA though.