No longer in the top 20

[Wija 0]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7242490.stm

 

We need a complete Executive shake up!!

 

And soon!

[porno_piper 0]

Right, I say we all get together and make a bid... I've got �£12.32 and a button... whos with me? lol

 

your right though there needs to be a serious shake up at the top. We cant go on like this!

[Gribz 847]

Depends if this is down to other clubs getting richer or us getting poorer.

 

But imagine if us and Celtic were in a league on par with the Milans, Madrid and Man U etc - we'd be stonking rich. We have been in and around the top 20 for as long as I can remember while playing in a small league. I dont see a Rosenburg, Anderlecht or benfica in this list.

[calscot 0]

We've pretty much opted ourselves out of this list as it's a list of top turnovers. We've contracted out our retailing, ticketing and catering, which reduces our turnover by over �£20m. It has therefore shrunk our turnover from about 64M to 44M with Celtic posting �£75M due to the CL and of course, not contracting out.

 

Now the interesting thing is that although our turnover is reduced and therefore our gross income, our net income is pretty much the same and also very low risk. We don't have to pay for premises, staff, equipment, logistics etc.

 

So it shows that while we have reduced our turnover it is arguable that our finances are actually healthier and more stable and we are concentrating on football operations where our expertise is supposed to reside, rather than our attention being diverted as a shop or burger stall.

 

Therefore, you have to question what relevance pure turnover is as a financial metric to grade football teams...?

 

From what I understand more used metric is the Gross margin percentage which has probably increased due to contracting out.

 

So while this rich list is an interesting aside to football, it is not something to get duly excited or worried over.

 

And remember, just because Celtic post a turnover of about 30M more than us, does not automatically mean they have any more money to spend...

[Trailio 0]

and also with the new tv deals around europe kicking in this season, experts predict this will be the last time you will find clubs from the smaller leagues getting close to the top 20

[DJBlue72 0]

Were we not only 2nd to Man Utd in the world from Merchandise sales before Minty sold the Rangers shops to JJB.

 

Kills me to see the Mhanks above us as we are a bigger club in all sense's but they seem to be able to get their books in order off the park.

 

But as long as we are top of the SPL thats all that matters (For Now)

[calscot 0]

It could be argued that the JJB deal is good as we're supposed to be getting the same profit every year, GUARANTEED in what is expected to be a declining market.

 

Could you explain in what way that CFC are getting their books in order as I'd be interested to know?

 

They have a much bigger turnover, but I've already explained about that and we can't help the fact that they qualified for the CL and we didn't - that's about what happens on the park, NOT keeping the books in order.

 

When we qualified for the last 16 the year before, we were 18th and they were nowhere after crashing out in the 2nd qualifier; were our books in order then? Were their's?

 

Were they extolling how superior that Rangers were on their message boards? I don't think so.

 

So basically knee jerk reactions to arbitrary news that none of the reporters understand one iota, never mind the fans who are informed by the ignorant, are not going to do us any good

 

If Celtic's books are better than ours (which is hard to tell as they don't publish them for free on the internet like Rangers do - as well as the fact I'm a Rangers shareholder and not Celtic) then it will be mostly for the following reasons:

 

1. They took a gamble on building a cheaper larger stadium at a time of increased attendances whereas we rebuilt our stadium at a low point in the 80's and did not forsee having to increase it - or the Taylor report. We revamped ours in a quality way but the capicty means our average attendance is about 8000 less than their's. That could bring in about �£4M a year more gate revenue than us. The board is now looking at how to close that gap.

 

2. Recently they have been more successful than us on the pitch and in qualifying for the CL and especially the last 16. That brings in quite a few millions more in revenue. But this could be starting to change as we're starting to qualify for the CL more often.

 

3. Their fans have put their hands in their pockets for I think, three large share issues. Our fans raise a million or so on our share issue - however the pre-Christmas timing was terrible (and affected my decision to buy any).

 

4. They've sold quite a few players recently for decent money compared to us (except Boumsong) whereas we paid a few player off instead - although that again is changing with Hutton and Cousin.

 

Appart from that, I don't really know what else Celtic are doing better than Rangers unless someone wants to enlighten us.

 

The stuff I've mentioned does seem to be changing again either in our favour to to be more equal.

[bmck 117]

turnover does seem like a strange metric. i suppose it indicates the bigness of institution -breadth of ambition perhaps - in a way profit doesnt but if, in the end, a company of a smaller scale makes the same profits as a company on a bigger turnover, its going to be very hard for them to have some complexion about their size.

[bmck 117]

what are the comparative profits, anyone know?