I think there has been an appreciable shift of opinion amongst fans of TRFC recently.
Unlike the ‘invest: speculate to accumulate’ rhetoric featured in the press and by ex-players, the ordinary fans are coming to the realisation that there is no quick fix. There are even murmurings that there may never be a fix which involves their club becoming a competitive force.
Poor management of fan expectations has long been an accusation levelled at the TRFC board by SFM. It is possible though that many fans are beginning to manage their own expectations rather better. There are certainly justifiable criticisms of the manager, Mark Warburton, but alongside that is a realism about the limitations and constraints that he is working under.
There is a rather misguided, and possibly not accurate assumption that another liquidation for a team out of Ibrox would result in having to start ‘yet again’ in the bottom division; but in fact there is a growing acceptance that consolidation in the top league is a much better solution than gambling on huge borrowing simply to stop Celtic adding more notches to the goalpost.
Could it be that the fans are about to do the job that the board haven’t had the balls to do –accept the gap between themselves and (at least) Celtic, and settle for mediocrity on the field as a short term price to pay for continuity?
During the 1990s, in the middle of the Murray/BoS fuelled spending spree, and with Celtic in the doldrums, it seemed to many Celtic fans that their club would never be able to bridge that gap. Of course they did, but at the emotional cost of losing the exclusive 9IAR record.
TRFC now find themselves in pretty much the same position, but their road to bridging the current gap is a more difficult one.
There are similarities of course. Like the Celtic of the 90s, Rangers have major infrastructure challenges to meet. Celtic had a stadium to build, Rangers have Ibrox (and Auchenhowie) to fix and improve. Both required massive investment to improve the team, although I would argue that Rangers have a steeper hill to climb in that area.
Unlike RFC of the 90s, Celtic’s accrued wealth has nothing to do with an intravenous hook-up between their bank account and the chairman’s pals at the bank. Their baseline advantage over the current Rangers predicament is a combination of a stadium which holds 10,000 more fans than Ibrox, no debt, a burgeoning cash balance and the current inflow of European cash.
The Euro cash and the cash balance could be depleted, but the 10,000 extra seats won’t.
It also seems difficult to imagine how TRFC can obtain seed capital – even if they were inclined to gamble – given the combination of barriers to achieving that;
- They have a PLC with no stock market listing
- They have NO executive directors on the PLC board
- The current chairman is a convicted criminal, convicted of offences involving money
- The current chairman and vice-chairman are both directors of a previously liquidated club, and therefore associated with the financial mismanagement which brought that about.
- In that climate, sponsorship deals are hard to come by. Major sponsors want to be associated with stability, success and integrity. TRFC don’t tick many boxes in that regard.
- Banks do not lend to football clubs. Pre Murray/Masterton, football clubs were cash businesses with modest overdraft facilities to cover modest cash-flow peaks and troughs. The banks have returned to that model. 1987-2007 was the exception, not the norm.
- They are at war with a powerful and substantial shareholder in Mike Ashley.
- There is still litigation pending on more than one front which could even call into question the ownership of the club’s assets.
- They are in debt already (estimated at around £15m).
- The current onfield situation may require yet another write-off in terms of contracts.
Any one of those bullet points could be enough to derail any plan to get to the top. In combination, there may even be an existential question to answer.
That is why the fans are starting to look a lot smarter than the board, and ultimately the good sense of the fans may well help the board to find a way out of their current dilemma.
But even with realistic expectations from the supporters, is it possible that they can find a way? Is there for instance someone with a magic wand or bag of cash who could come in and turn it around? Perhaps, but who would risk money on a precarious venture like a football club when one of the most powerful businessmen in the country is in dispute with you?
In order for serious inward investment to happen;
- Ashley has to be reconciled with the board (needs King and Murray to go).
- The debt has to be written off .
- The new investor(s) has to be given control of the club (and this would perhaps require another 75% special resolution where current shareholders would be asked to vote to dilute their own influence).
- If they achieved that (and it is a pretty big if) the new investor cash would go into the club’s bank account – not used to pay off the debt – and they would be free to pursue new and better sponsorship deals, improve the merchandising contract with an onside Ashley, and add new revenue streams.
Even then, any new board would need to see the infrastructure challenges as paramount. Having one eye squinting in the direction of Parkhead will blur the bigger picture.
Their priority should be to reduce the losses (whilst increasing wages for better players), fix the stadium and the training ground (both in need of repair and improvement), build a scouting and youth infrastructure, and free up a (relatively modest) wad of cash to improve the playing squad.
In defence of the current board, the challenges facing them are almost vertical in incline. No matter how skilful they are, nothing other than someone with a barrowload of cash and a very long term outlook can put any kind of fix in place.
£50m might buy the debt and equity, and repair the stadium, but progress requires on-field improvement. It also needs stability, and therefore Ashley’s cooperation. The price of that is the head of Dave King.
Rangers will bring in more at the gate than Aberdeen, Hearts or Hibs, but they have a considerably higher cost base than those clubs. With better players, recurring costs will be even higher – much higher.
To square this circle, however unpalatable it appears to be, peace has to be made with Ashley. That is the key to being able to embark upon a journey that has any chance of success. Otherwise, the clocks will have to be reset to 2022, and the end of the SD contract, before progress can be made.
However there is no chance it can go on that long. Rangers fans may be increasingly less demanding in what they expect, but they will need to see some signs – and not just words – that a plan is in place.
The board are getting ready to throw Mark Warburton to the hounds (the MSM lapdogs have already been armed with poison pens to effect that). This will buy them some time, but not enough.
We’ve said it before, and at the risk of sounding like a broken record, I’ll say it again;
For Rangers to have a fighting chance of competing at the top of football, King needs to be gone. If he does go, half of the barriers preventing the club raising cash are dismantled.
So is King’s departure a price worth paying? If he really had Rangers in his heart, he would say ‘Yes’.
GUNNERB
FEBRUARY 16, 2017 at 21:06
========================================
Administration is normally a defence against a winding up order as I understand it.
Why would the PLC move to wind up its own subsidiary.
Why would it hand over control of its subsidiary to an administrator.
Sorry if I am missing something obvious here. How would you see the administration of TRFC playing out.
Can i post this here?
a good read on the volunteers
http://thecelticblog.com/2017/02/blogs/why-is-the-daily-record-giving-free-advertising-to-sevcos-latest-scam/
HOMUNCULUSFEBRUARY 16, 2017 at 21:24
————————————————-
Administration is normally a defence against a winding up order as I understand it.
Why would the PLC move to wind up its own subsidiary.
Why would it hand over control of its subsidiary to an administrator.
————————————————
See Duff and Phelps…(joking..I think)
Sorry if I am missing something obvious here. How would you see the administration of TRFC playing out.
————————————————————————-
As I see it parent/subsidiary is a device , the parent has no trade or income or interest in anything other than the subsidiary. TRFC are obviously stressing so I presume that a voluntary administration would be in the best interests of the parent company given that they are owed more than 75% and may have a greater say in CVA matters.If a CVA is agreed would the parent company not continue to own the subsidiary?
I claim no financial insight or expertise and my original post was couched as a what if? I would appreciate your input on how it might play out if it should come to pass Homunculus, or your reasoning against such happenings, every day etc.
cheers
HOMUNCULUSFEBRUARY 16, 2017 at 20:54 Rate This People talking about administration again.Can I ask the same question again.The PLC or the Ltd Company.
——————-
Or both?
Administration
I have just been reminded about the football creditors rule DOH! So even post admin TRFC might be liable for full amounts to the management team?
GUNNERB
FEBRUARY 16, 2017 at 21:47
===================================
Sorry if this appears obtuse, but I seriously don’t see the point of TRFC going into administration, voluntary or otherwise.
What debt could be dealt with, as I understand it they only owe money to the PLC. Why would the shareholders of the PLC want that debt reduced.
They would lose 15 points (let’s not argue OC/NC 25 points). So would move to 6th in the division (based on current points) 6 behind St Johnston. That would be a nightmare re next season and potential European income.
Well it looks like there is going to be a good old dog fight for the Europa places. Aberdeen are on the up, Hearts new manager and new signings coming good and The Rangers have a new manager whom Brendan Rodgers had a lot of regard for. Scottish football is not as bad as people make out.
(btw, I love that assistant manager at Hearts, he is a proper hipster) (not Hibster!)
HOMUNCULUSFEBRUARY 16, 2017 at 22:19 2 Votes
___________________
Yes indeed Homunculus, I asked the effect on RRM in my original post. The only upside I see is that it ‘re-sets’ TRFC and gives hope of a long term future. Will the RRM be willing to write off significant sums to ensure this survival? because if they don’t then it is a continuing spiral of loan after loan to maintain a riduculous situation.The future has to be rid of King and negotiate with Ashley.
There is an alternative to all this Administration worrying. Let them die peacefully. Get rid of Murray Park, Get rid of Ibrokes, they can’t afford it. Start again, the way they should have the last time. Get rid of sectarianism, play in pink. Get rid of the monkees..
Just for info, the inter company debt between RIFC and TRFC was reclassified in the last accounts as an “Investment in Subsidiaries”.
From the RIFC Accounts
From the TRFC accounts
JIMBOFEBRUARY 16, 2017 at 23:08 There is an alternative to all this Administration worrying. Let them die peacefully. Get rid of Murray Park, Get rid of Ibrokes, they can’t afford it. Start again, the way they should have the last time. Get rid of sectarianism, play in pink. Get rid of the monkees
,,,,,,,,,,,,,
Post of the year..
With the continued situtation at Rangers/(sevco/TRFC).
Two things….
It is worth remembering that a debate about 15/25 points and 5 years is surely predicated on when the club exitted administration not entered administration. As we all know Rangers (etablished 1872) did not exit administration to normality, but exitted to liquidation.
As for clearing the decks, well if (sevco/TRFC) enter admiistration the football debts are not lost… they remain alive and as far as the SFA are concerned at the front of the queue. So Barton and others such as Port Vale, Mark Warburton, David Weir get paid even if (sevco/TRFC) enter administration.
The only people who lose out are…? in the main RIFC owners! And some other companies who current;y have a debt with (sevco/TRFC)
Buddy
Can somebody answer this: mark Warburton and David Weir have not resigned and no proof of this has been shown. As it is with legals the post of mangement must be in limbo as to appoint someone and be found to have unfairly dimissed your employees replacing them must ring alarm bells to all Unions.
This can not happen and i believe this is why a post is been made up Director of Football to put someone in place of experience to help the caretaker title. Any thoughts?
On the 5 year clear blue water between administrations, I believe the meter starts when a club emerges from administration. They need 5 clean years afterwards.
You can see how that might be an awkward conversation ?
On the Sevco ‘volunteers ‘,maybe it’ll be like the Commonwealth Games and they’ll all have thon big foam hauns to point folk in the direction of the lavvies n stuff.
CLUSTER ONE
FEBRUARY 16, 2017 at 18:36
————————-
http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/partick-thistle-football-club-slammed-9623387
Hate to add the link but just goes to show how 2 faced the smsm is
Hope this preview works for above link
JOBURGT1MFEBRUARY 17, 2017 at 05:32 9 Votes
CLUSTER ONEFEBRUARY 16, 2017 at 18:36————————-
http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/partick-thistle-football-club-slammed-9623387
Hate to add the link but just goes to show how 2 faced the smsm is
————————–
They just lost a lot of PF readership
Anybody know if Albert Kinloch’s bookie line said Warbs would be sacked, or resign?….Is “terminated” a transient verb?.
I was going to post something last week but the Ibrox 3 fiasco then came into play and has now perhaps made my post even more relevant.
I noted last week Brendan Rodgers was giving his views re the lack of commitment from Scottish players. This despite only being in the country a matter of months. This week he can be seen commenting on the Warburton situation, Marke McGhee and lord knows what else.
While I appreciate he has a bit more skin in the game that the Magic Hat did maybe the Hoops fans would like to warn their manager that it is best to focus on the job in hand (which he is doing very well) and not get sucked into the SMSM need for his views on extraterrestrial life, the second coming, Trump, global warming, yer Aunty Jeanie’s funeral plans etc etc.
I doubt even though Murty has donned the manager jacket he will be viewed as the font of all knowledge so Rodgers will become to go to guy on everything under the sun to fill the column inches.
My advice would be to stay focused and avoid getting dragged into their sordid little game.
A wee thought on the administration discussion going on last night, and an uneducated stab at why the directors of RIFC might choose to call in the administrators to TRFC.
As I understand it, the RRMs, such as the 3bears, have not made loans directly to TRFC (The Club), they have made them to RIFC which has in turn lent the money to The Club. I am sure, though, that The Club will have more debt, with anything due under the impending litigations also due from The Club.
Again, by my understanding, should RIFC go into administration, TRFC would automatically soon follow, as the administrators would be duty bound to call up the loans they received from the holding company. On the other hand, RIFC don’t owe The Club anything, and so the reverse would not be the case.
The question has been asked, how would the administration of TRFC benefit the RRM behind RIFC? Might I suggest the following?
RIFC call in the administrators to TRFC. RIFC become the major creditor of TRFC and control the administration process. A CVA of pennies in the pound is agreed. This wipes out anything owed from the litigation and current creditors, although the plan may be spoiled somewhat by the need to pay football creditiors. TRFC are left with a very basic squad, but have got rid of the high earners, RIFC then offer shares (pre-emption rights sorted out in their favour would be the plan/hope for the RRM), and whatever is raised is used to set The Club on it’s next journey, or, put another way, the cycle of overspending in search of past glories starts again.
There will be holes in that theory, and even if there actually is a similar plan in the minds of the board, current or future events may prevent it from happening, but I think something along these lines might be an incentive for the board (of RIFC) to call in the administrators to TRFC. Of course, like Whyte’s attempt to manipulate RFC’s administration, things can go wrong.
A further theory on why this scenario might be beneficial to The Club and the RIFC board.
It is possible that loans are available to see the club through to the close season and ST time, but only enough to survive without the additional costs of failed defences in court. The main case might leave TRFC owing SD in excess of £5m. The 3bears keep The Club going until the compensation must be paid, then the administrators take over, this season turns into the failure it might be anyway, but the debt that might otherwise kill a second Ibrox club is wiped out, leaving only the ‘friendly’ debt that they (maybe) can cope with.
We can speculate all we want but the reality is that there is always going to be money floating around Ibrox to keep something afloat.
The question is what type of football club/team will that be?
If there was to be an insolvency event then surely the current board would have to GTF! They have rode into town as saviours and have delivered very little in terms of their public proclamations.
The banners over the superstore and around the stadium are merely covering over the cracks.
The scenario at the weekend could easily see Hearts pick up three points (fingers and everything else crossed) and Agent Hartley do a job on T’Rangers. 3 point gap and fourth spot looming while managerial and DoF appointments still floating around in the ether.
If it goes down the pan they could bleat all they want re Ashley and onerous contracts but they were supposed to be the answer. Clearly they are not. They simply do not have the wherewithal to keep funding a loss making business especially when, in terms of running a football club, one bad decision after another is made on a regular basis.
HELPMABOAB
big red ones
WOTTPI
FEBRUARY 17, 2017 at 10:21
We can speculate all we want but the reality is that there is always going to be money floating around Ibrox to keep something afloat.
==============================================
If that’s true why did the previous club go into administration owing tens of millions of pounds, possibly over £100m, then fail to agree a CVA and is currently being liquidated.
I’m afraid the notion that Rangers cannot die, that it simply wont be allowed and that there will always be money found died with the previous club.
The bottom line is that this type of thinking was part of the problem before.
WOTTPIFEBRUARY 17, 2017 at 10:21
We can speculate all we want but the reality is that there is always going to be money floating around Ibrox to keep something afloat.
_______________
I’m sure similar thoughts were floating around in 2012, though there is quite a difference with the current entity, not least the damaging fact that they are not the club they’d like to be, with less of an air of certainty surrounding them. While I wouldn’t state catagorically that administration is inevitable, I see nothing in the known knowns to suggest it definitely won’t happen. In short, as things stand, the club’s existence depends on someone being prepared to put more and more money, in the shape of loans, into a loss making business, with, at the very best, an uncertain future.
The club’s short-term future depends, entirely, on having someone prepared to continue making these no-return loans, and it’s a known unknown as to how much more the lenders are prepared to provide. They might only be prepared to do that (if they can actually afford to do that) for as long as they believe that one day soon someone else is going to relieve them of their burden, and the likelihood of that someone turning up must disappear with each additional loan and every Warbogate style event.
HOMUNCULUSFEBRUARY 17, 2017 at 11:12
ALLYJAMBOFEBRUARY 17, 2017 at 11:25
I said that there was money there to keep something afloat. I never gave a definition of what something was but I did ask the question what would that be in terms of the type of club team that may emerge from such a scenario.
Had Hearts not got their CVA and went into Liquidation there would have been people and money around to try and keep something going.
The same will follow follow again down Ibrox way if there is another insolvency event.
There will be a regrouping, pleas will be made to the footballing authorities etc etc.
Something will emerge that claims to be the Rangers of old, regardless of the legal technicalities etc.
Regardless of what you think of them, what makes people believe 40k plus Bears are any less loyal that the handfuls of lower league club supporters that do whatever they can to help keep their little piece of Scottish Football alive
Even if 20k walked away they would still have the second largest support in Scotland.
There will be support and money there to keep something alive.
I agree it won’t be Rangers or possibly even T’Rangers but it will be something and those involved will link it to the ethereal entity.
How successful that reincarnation (or others!) would be, where they would play, what league etc is of course unknown but my guess is that over time the correct level would be found al la Porstmouth, Leeds etc.
Id flip that the other way Homunculus. Its now been proven by professors Johnson, Wilson, Keevins et al that the Club can’t die and that the club (TRFC) is just a wee thing to be tossed aside once its spent (no pun intended) and another ‘the club’ take over.
If I was a 3bear I would be using that aspect to my advantage. I certainly wouldn’t be throwing MY good money after bad to let others live their pipe dream. But then in fairness I also would be a model of humility trying to hang in with my potential voting base for re-entry if that was required (and it would be a last resort of course).
To be honest I’m only vaguely interested in whether this TRFC chooses or is forced into admin much as I would be in any Scottish team/fitba company, whatever. That is their business. What I am interested in is how the SFA and the SPFL deal with it. Even more so if they are liquidated as per the last lot. I suspect it may be a lot harder to stitch up a 4WA this time around given the interrogation of the 5WA carried out entirely without the MSM.
As for how a TRFC might go forward WOTTPI makes the key point. Even if 20k walk away they will have the second biggest crowd in Scotland: and by some measure. The sooner someone who takes over at TRFC, not a spiv, sees this the sooner they will be ok.
WOTTPIFEBRUARY 17, 2017 at 12:07
I absolutely respect your opinion.
I simply don’t agree it is as clear cut as you make out.
There comes a time when there are no people left willing to finance an expensive hobby, and if you believe that 20,000 people going to Ibrox would provide enough revenue to keep the stadium open you would really need to explain the arithmetic to me, because if people aren’t going then pretty much every other revenue stream drops as well as ticket sales. There is no overdraft or credit facility to pay the bills as they fall due, other than those wealthy fans.
Will there be a club calling themselves Rangers, Glasgow Ranger, The Rangers or something similar. There’s every possibility. However they will be no more the same club formed in 1872 than the current version is. Without wealthy people willing to fund ongoing losses there is every chance that club will no longer be able to run its training ground, stadium etc. How could that even pretend to be Rangers.
If the attitude to prudent sustainability remains as it is then there is an inevitability about the spiral towards insolvency. Third Rangers can only thrive if it practices sustainability. There might be a great deal of stampeding away if such a policy is applied, at that point the need to play, and to train, at other venues becomes urgent. The move to more suitable facilities might create another evacuation.
Private Fraser comes to mind – doomed I tell you…
wottpiFebruary 17, 2017 at 08:24
‘….so Rodgers will become to go to guy on everything under the sun to fill the column inches.’
_______
Right!
I wonder if he would respond to a question about Celtic plc’s refusal to chase up the possibility that they were done out of millions by an allegedly cheating SFA administration ,as requested by an AGM of their own feckin shareholders!
I think I will ask him.
That might settle his hash, and test him as a man of principle , or even as a man who knows what day of the week it is in Scottish Football when , manifestly, the Celtic plc board have clearly been too bloody feart to explain why they were , are, happy not even to challenge the actions of the SFA in awarding the European Competition licence to an unentitled club.
I write this in the sure and certain knowledge and belief that there is not one SMSM hack who would ever ask the question, because even to ask such a question would cause them to be barred from Ibrox, and their wee bits of succulent lamb.
It bloody well annoys me to hell, that Celtic did not act on Res 12.
In a high dudgeon, I went up to the paper shop (no, it hadn’t blown away )ordered the Daily Record, erm daily, then promptly cancelled the order . That’ll teach them !
JOHN CLARKFEBRUARY 17, 2017 at 13:06
….. It bloody well annoys me to hell, that Celtic did not act on Res 12……..
John – they did.
From the very top down they did everything they could to sideline it without ever being seen to have done so.
For reasons we’ve all discussed it suits them not to go there.
HOMUNCULUSFEBRUARY 17, 2017 at 12:50
H – you don’t have to tell me about the running costs.
I have continually pointed out on here that going back to the SDM days the running costs of the Rangers operation was £10-14m per annum before any money was being spent on players wages etc. To sustain that along with having high-faluting ambitions you need fans through the door but they themselves generate large running costs.
However, the maths are simple.
Queens Park play in the lower reaches of the SPFL. Through a quirk of history, they own a 51k all seater stadium capable hosting major football games, other sporting events and concerts.
Their average home attendance is currently 634.
They have been around since 1867 and don’t appear to be going out of business yet. What the future brings come the end of the SFA lease in 2020 is another question.
Regardless, my firm prediction is that Queens Park will remain a part of the SPFL and continue to play football one way or another. Their fans love their team regardless of their league position.
Aberdeen only have an average crowd of 12,800 but are embarking on spending £40 -50m on a new stadium. How can they possibly afford that if sustainability and austerity is the mantra. Surely they are speculating to accumulate? Does no one else see rocky shores ahead?
Despite this huge cost outlay I predict Aberdeen will still be playing in the SPFL for years to come. Their fans love their team regardless of looking like being the bridesmaid for years to come.
Given the above are you saying that it is wholly impossible for someone with the right plan, ambition and vision not to make a go of it with a Rangers mark III or even sort out the mess that is Rangers mark II.
Let some of the 20k walk away, they may not be the ones you want anyway. Shut the top tiers. Shut a whole stand for a season and work on any roof repairs when you can – if required. Plenty grounds do not have four completed stands, Falkirk, Partick Hamilton etc.
Get rid of the training facility, or share it with someone else to generate income.
Rebrand and remarket the club for the 21 century. Attract people in who share your vision. Dump the WATP stuff. Tell it how it is – a long slow build. Tell them winning and being Billy Big Baws, while great isn’t all that important. Tell them its all about watching good football, supporting your team, developing young talent, supporting the local community etc etc.
Might work, might not – however it is not impossible or indeed improbable.
Its what should have been done in 2012 but what we all got was Green and his nonsense.
I wholly agree that the maths don’t work if you still think you are the old club and have short arms and long pockets but there has always been another path that could have been trodden.
HomunculusFebruary 17, 2017 at 12:50
‘…. How could that even pretend to be Rangers…’
_________
Possibly because, as is already the case with the CG’s SevcoScotland/TRFC nonsense, theSFA will simply deem it to be ‘Rangers’
Scottish Football is up against four things:
a) the hugely emotional connection between the SFA ‘governance’ and RFC(IL)
b) the hugely emotional connection between RFC(IL) and the SMSM
c) the readiness of other clubs to cede to the idea that ‘Rangers’ must be catered to, regardless of any notion of Sporting Integrity
d) the readiness of a certain club to take a huge financial hit by not challenging -on absolutely solid sporting rules grounds- a decision that seemed to fly in the face of objective truth.
Supporter of Scottish Football I may be.
But I’m fcuked if I’m going to be played like a patsie ( patsy?) ( who mentioned the wonderful Joanna Lumley!) by any chancers and money-grubbers in any club.
It must surely be impossible that , in the event of an Administration out of which TRFC does not emerge but ,like Struth’s Rangers, dies the death of Liquidation, the SFA could even try to create another monstrous, anti-sporting-integrity lie?
There could not be a second 5-way agreement.
If TRFC go bust……..that puts the hems on any notion that the old, ‘distinguished’, up to a point honourable, Scottish football club may still exist, except as a fond remembrance , for those for whom it might be such.
But, with the SFA-who knows?
They can say with Macbeth,” I am in blood / Stepp’d in so far, that, should I wade no more, / Returning were as tedious as go o’er”
Bad guys, hopelessly lost in their badness.
To our great sorrow and regret.
Would that they would could see the error of their ways.
We (might) forgive them- if they owned up, and took measures enough to corrrect the wrongdoing they did.
FinlochFebruary 17, 2017 at 14:00
‘…For reasons we’ve all discussed it suits them not to go there.’
_________
Clearly, it suits them not to go there.
But I think shareholders are entitled to ask for detailed reasonings as to why it is in their interests to lose millions through an ( allegedly ) corrupt ‘fix’ arranged by the ‘guardians’ of the sport!
I may have missed something.
But I have seen no response from Celtic plc giving any response whatsoever to the substance of the Res 12 motion.
To me, that is not at all satisfactory.
God knows,there might be a hundred valid reasons for the Celtic plc silence.
All I am looking for is some kind of response giving even one valid reason.
Am I likely to get it?
From one cheek?
I doubt it.
Re a potential TRIFC/TRFC insolvency event.
The most important thing to remember is that there will be no such event as long as someone is willing to fund the trading losses. Look at Chelsea as an example. Abramovich was willing to fund losses of £10’s of millions of pounds per annum to get the club to a certain level where the Champions league money could lead to a roughly break even situation.
There may be an agreement in place between current directors/shareholders to fund losses of £x per annum for a certain period of time with a view/plan to finally breaking even. We are not privy to their private conversations and plans. However, what happens if and when such plans get blown off course. Perhaps by failing to qualify for Europe. Or maybe an unexpected employment dispute or legal fight with a strategic partner.
There is no doubt that TRICF/TRFC are circling a whirlpool in a small and leaky craft, I like to think of the director/shareholder funding as the spluttering outboard motor that gives this craft just enough speed to keep from being sucked under.
An insolvency event could be planned by those on the inside with a view to a pre-pack CVA but I struggle to see the benefit of this if The Rangers Retail contract survives, as I am sure it would. All of TRFC’s debt is to TRIFC – paying pennies in the pound on this stiffs TRIFC. All of TRIFC’s debt is to shareholders/directors so paying pennies in the pound just stiffs themselves.
Insolvency will happen when those who can afford to stump up say “Enough” or those who are willing no longer have the money to do so. It will then likely be up to a third party to keep the show on the road, either taking the business out of administration by coming to an agreement with creditors or by buying the assets from a liquidator.
FWIW my odds on the next 12 months look like this:
10% Limp on with director/shareholder funding
20% Administration and some sort of sale of the business to a third party as a going concern
70% Liquidation and sale of the assets
I just don’t get all these ‘soft loans’. Surely that can’t go on for ever? Might be a good short term fix but the club doesn’t seem to be in hurry to reach break even point. Indeed they would need to bring their outgoings down to below their income in order to start paying off the loans. If I remember correctly, some of these loans are supposed to be repaid this December coming. Although they might be deferred.
I can only think that the lenders don’t try to recoup their money and be seen to responsible for another administration. Wonder if any of them regret getting involved in the first place.
As many have said, where is the big plan?
Sorry Tincks I wouldn’t have posted my comment if I had seen yours first. Great minds think alike!
JIMBOFEBRUARY 17, 2017 at 15:29
As has been pointed out loans can go on forever if someone is willing to keep putting their hands in their pocket.
As discussed a while back it wasn’t so long ago that Aberdeen were sitting on £15m of monies owed.
However someone came along with the offer of cash, shares were offered things were refinanced, re jigged, magicked away by the accountants and it was all start from scratch.
It is the way businesses works and is apparently not uncommon for some professional sporting endeavours.
Aberdeen had their guys, Celtic had the Bunnet, Hearts have Ms Budge. All these people were supported by a reasonable body of fans and their contributions to the cause. Most folks are happy with the situations.
On the other side of the coin Gretna had Brooks Mileson but when his money went south there was on one else.
Currently T’Rangers have King & Co but no-one else on the horizon willing to do deals with them. Fan income is there to be used but it is being wasted and misdirected on an unreasonable dream because, as you say, there appears to be no concrete plan or direction that makes any sense.
That combination means things will always be sticky in the financial garden.
Until a realistic plan for the future is formulated it is a hand to mouth existence where one wrong move could put the whole lot down the Swanee.
I haven’t quoted it for a while but imagine how the current T’Rangers situation would pan out in the Dragon’s Den.
Great pitch mentioning the history tradition the large customer base, the potential etc.
Then the Dragon’s get started.
-Eh weren’t you on the board of a liquidated company?
-What did that judge say about you?
-What are your ongoing liabilities and are folks chasing you for money?
-You say you are a millionaire and already have a successful business whose finances is the envy of the footballing world- so tell me again why do you need our money?
-Give us a breakdown of your last three years figures. Continual losses you say and likely increased running costs in the future?
-Who are your competitors in this market place. Why should I go with you if they are doing much better or can give me more concrete guarantees of success?
-Where is my return?
-Sorry in the current format you are proposing – but I’m out!
TincksFebruary 17, 2017 at 15:23
FWIW my odds on the next 12 months look like this: 10% Limp on with director/shareholder funding 20% Administration and some sort of sale of the business to a third party as a going concern 70% Liquidation and sale of the assets
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….
From the above “odds”, I take it you’re not a bookmaker Tincks. Don’t go offering 9/1 on them limping along for another 12 months, they may well do. If Mr Kinloch sees those generous odds, I’m sure he’ll be in touch?????
jimbo February 17, 2017 at 15:29
I just don’t get all these ‘soft loans’. Surely that can’t go on for ever?
—————————————————————————
Jimbo,
For the short/medium future of the Ibrox entity yours is the only question that matters.
The leaky boat circling the whirlpool in my mind is named the SS Good Money After Bad. There will surely come a time when the current funders say that enough is enough. Then if no one else steps up…………………..
A couple of posters have written that TRFC only owe money to RIFC.
My view is that TRFC will be brought to its knees (or at least stumble) due to the actions of a party other than RIFC.
RIFC doesn’t write cheques for TRFC. It’s a business that owns a subsidiary that operates a football club: TRFC has all the operational costs to pay. T3Bs lend money to RIFC & it is then disbursed to TRFC to enable the club to pay its bills.
RIFC are unlikely to be defaulting on any due bills. TRFC may do if the soft loans aren’t forthcoming…
normanbatesmumfc February 17, 2017 at 16:17
Norman,
I’m far too tight to risk any of my hard earned on anything as flimsy as my judgement
“To the TRFC Board,
for the avoidance of doubt: I want to put on record that I am NOT interested in taking over as manager of TRFC.
Thanks for the anticipated interest, and I wish you all the best in your search to fill this position.
Regards,
StevieBC”
================
(Idea plagiarised from an ESJ Comment.)
Tincks at 16.24
another problem may arise when all the soft loan donors realise they’ve all been promised that they are exclusively first in the queue when the good times roll once more.
The plan seems to be that the soft loans will be repaid as equity.
However how many shares can you give people and at what price.
If we say 80m shares at 25p, that’s £20m
However they have already borrowed £14m on the strength of that.
What happens if the loans get to the £20m, what can they offer then. Other than actually repaying the loans. That requires not just a break even company, it requires profit making business. They could of course keep issuing shares, but that is reducing the value of existing shares. There has to be a limit to that, just keeping issuing more shares to get money to pay the bills isn’t really a viable business model.
The Rangers Retail joint venture apparently has another 5-6 years to run. So additional income has to come from elsewhere, or costs have to be cut, or both.
CLUSTER ONEFEBRUARY 17, 2017 at 07:19
————————–They just lost a lot of PT readership
——–
Corrected…I was half asleep,apologies to PT fans
IMO there are professional people at Ibrox trying to do their best for TRFC . I think some may have enquired of EUFA as to TRFC’s acceptability for European competition next season . I also think that the answer to that question will determine whether or not TRFC enter an (their first ) administration event .
TINCKSFEBRUARY 17, 2017 at 16:24 6 Votes
jimbo February 17, 2017 at 15:29 I just don’t get all these ‘soft loans’. Surely that can’t go on for ever? —————————————————————————Jimbo,
For the short/medium future of the Ibrox entity yours is the only question that matters.
The leaky boat circling the whirlpool in my mind is named the SS Good Money After Bad. There will surely come a time when the current funders say that enough is enough. Then if no one else steps up…………………..
————————–
HOMUNCULUSFEBRUARY 17, 2017 at 18:43 Rate This
The plan seems to be that the soft loans will be repaid as equity.
However how many shares can you give people and at what price.
——————————
To me it looked like, give us soft loans and you will be repaid as equity
give us soft loans and you will have shares in the most successful club…etc.etc.(even though it will be shares in the company)
Anyone who gave soft loans expecting them to be returned as shares and equity,now know there will be no share issue anytime soon.They have two options. keep giving soft loans that will not be repaid as shares and see their money sail away. Or pull the plug.
Paddy you have reminded me of something. I think I have said before on here, The Rangers notion that getting into the Europa League will solve all their financial problems is a false hope. Even if they manage to get through a couple of qualifiers, the rewards are peanuts. Ask Motherwell, Aberdeen, St. Johnstone et.al. They didn’t become rich clubs after the event. There are a lot of costs involved in participating. The season after Celtic reached the final in Seville – we were cost cutting. And we have a stadium capacity of 60k for the home ties.
PADDY MALARKEYFEBRUARY 17, 2017 at 19:02
As discussed the other day Europa League stuff is a red herring.
Yes every little helps and a good run in the qualifiers will get a few decent home gates but to put together a team that will make any type of progress towards the bigger money in that competition will take investment monies they don’t have.
Even if cash was spent in that manner that could easily be wiped out with an early defeat. You are then saddled with a diva style monthly wage for a few players you may not really need for the rigours of Scottish Football and financially no better of than when you started your euro adventure.
Seems to be a lot of “get the answer then ask the question” going on here. The answer is Rangers in admin, the question is how do they get there.
Might be more objective for the blog to assess the current situation; constant requirement for loans, yet loans provided and accounts signed off. Administration is no more or less likely now than it was three (or so) years ago.
Maybe the question to be asked is not what will drive them into admin, but what will keep them going?
Further, the requirement to negotiate with Ashley: I guarantee that if that man had his hooks into the revenue streams of any of your clubs you would not be speaking of him as highly as you do now. Negotiate with him to get rid of him, fine, but if it was my money and I was buying in now I’d just hold off and wait till the agreement was done because I would not give that parasite one penny of my or my clubs’ money. Ashley is a King Spiv, but he’s a hero here. The tone of conversation towards Mr Warburton has become highly sympathetic since he was no longer in the employ of Rangers. I’m not a newbie coming in here and claiming you’re anti Rangers, I’ve been contributing here for years, but I find that lately all people seem to want to do is take a pop at Rangers. Fair enough we make it easy, but if the starting position is always “Rangers have done something wrong, what was it?” there’s scope to miss other things going on.
RYANGOSLINGFEBRUARY 17, 2017 at 21:53
Might be more objective for the blog to assess the current situation; constant requirement for loans, yet loans provided
————————-
But for how long? is what many are asking
I think people are overestimating what having all of Rangers Retail’s money would bring.
It didn’t stop the last bankruptcy.
As to Ashley & Warburton- an asset stripper {NUFC} and an overrated manager.
No sympathy or respect from me.
RyanGoslingFebruary 17, 2017 at 21:53
________________________________
Hi Ryan
I have probably missed loads of comments but I haven’t really seen anyone speaking highly of MA. I think you would have to be brain dead to do that.
Btw mods why have I got a number in front of my name?
RYANGOSLINGFEBRUARY 17, 2017 at 21:53
Further, the requirement to negotiate with Ashley: I guarantee that if that man had his hooks into the revenue streams of any of your clubs you would not be speaking of him as highly as you do now. Negotiate with him to get rid of him, fine, but if it was my money and I was buying in now I’d just hold off and wait till the agreement was done because I would not give that parasite one penny of my or my clubs’ money
————————–
I can agree with you there.
But in the beginning the “partnership” with Sports Direct and TRFC. was hailed as the best thing for both.
https://stv.tv/news/west-central/186751-newco-rangers-reach-club-merchandise-retail-agreement-with-sports-direct/
RYANGOSLING
FEBRUARY 17, 2017 at 21:53
Seems to be a lot of “get the answer then ask the question” going on here. The answer is Rangers in admin, the question is how do they get there.
======================================
As I have said several times, I really don’t see the point in TRFC being placed into administration, unless it is as a protection against winding up.
I don’t know of anyone currently likely to move for that.
Cluster One,
Are you assigning relevance to the MSM? The man takes a huge percentage of retail income with no benefit to the club. Let’s put it another way; Mike Ashley takes 90% of the retail revenue of Motherwell FC, is he referred to as “Big Mike” here or is he slated non stop? The man is a terror, a leech on football clubs, and is fundamentally involved in destroying one of the biggest clubs in Scotland. If it was another way, and he was involved in destroying Motherwell or Aberdeen or Raith Rovers, would he be referred to on this forum as “Big Mike” and the club in question instructed to make peace with him?
RYANGOSLING
FEBRUARY 17, 2017 at 23:06
====================================
You know that is a totally specious argument just as much as everyone else here does.
Motherwell, Aberdeen and Raith Rovers did not make a deal with him as far as I am aware.
Rangers did, and like just about everything else, no-one forced them to. It’s another example of no-one’s fault but their own I’m afraid.
Ryan, as far as I can remember the horrible deal your club struck with MA & Sd was through Charles Green. CG was desperate to get some heavy hitters on board at your ISP. To get other ‘institional investors on board’ MA was one of the first.. You have paid for it since. But had it not been for MA you might never exist.
JIMBO
FEBRUARY 17, 2017 at 23:17
=================================
Mike Ashley was actually one of the major investors in the original limited company before the IPO. I believe the following are the relevant figures
Green had c15%
Blue Pitch had c12%
Ashley had c9%
The Joint Venture was also mentioned specifically in the IPO Prospectus.
Homuculus, I stand corrected, he was in there early. But it gave ‘comfort’ at the time to potentials. That is exactly what Green needed. He delivered with a retail deal which was disgraseful for the club. Who knows what brown envelope he got?
Ryan,
“What will keep them going?”, is a good question. More loans, plus fans’ money. What else is there? If you believe that is a credible financial base, (and it might be if expenditure is cut), and that your fellow fans would accept the status that gave them, whatever that was, I would wish you and your club well, were it not for their insistence on retaining the 80 years of sectarianism and 20 years of cheating practiced by the previous one, with which they appear to claim a continuity of history.
I think all football fans who dislike sectarianism and financial doping would agree, including die hard blue noses.
Alternatively, Mike Ashley might see something which is mutually beneficial to him and your club. He has the resources to finance TRFC to whatever level he likes, albeit he will have to spend a hell of a lot now to nudge Celtic from the CL spot.
In your opinion, where will your club be in 5 years?
Ryan
I understand why you don’t have much time for Ashley. However you are way of the mark.
You may be confusing us with Phil Mac who seems to put a lot of faith in ‘General Ashley’ despite his poor showing in the courts to date.
I am on here most days and Ashley doesn’t really get a lot of coverage. I think that is because many on here see the retail issue as a red herring. The money it could potentially bring in just goes someway to negating the need for lthe current pay day loans.
If loans weren’t required then there is no guarantee that money would be loaned for anything else.
Ashley may indeed be the ugly face of capitalism but he seems to pay his taxes and pumps plenty into Newcastle.
His initial investments and subsequent loans stopped the new club from going under before it even got started.
As others have pointed out, without such a big name who knows what investors would have come on board.
His retail deals require T’Rangers to keep in business so he has no real desire to kill the club.
Having a hard on for publicly shaming the chairman of the Plc is however a different matter.
RYANGOSLINGFEBRUARY 17, 2017 at 21:53
Seems to be a lot of “get the answer then ask the question” going on here. The answer is Rangers in admin, the question is how do they get there.
——————————————————————————————————————————
You may have a point Ryan, but what administration would achieve, how would it be done, and who would it benefit is my take on how the discussion has gone. I’m sure you understand how it has come about though.
Very little, if any, evidence or signs of real forthcoming investment have been presented to the general public other than words.
On the other hand there are many signs, including their own accounts, that finance is urgently required. This is further compounded by the upcoming court-cases, for which there appears to have been zero contingent liability budgeted for.
On top of that a rather miserable transfer window, where money was promised to have been held “In reserve” for, in a push to challenge Celtic never appeared.
To find a rationality to it all is proving impossible. It really is beyond comprehension, that a manager, assistant manager, and chief scout resign on a Monday, and it can be viewed as No biggee !, and treated with such a lack of urgency, that no steps were taken until the U20 coach was contacted on Friday evening at a rugby match to act as interim. What if he said No?
This in itself looks as if a court-room will be required to resolve, in a resignation/ sacked without compo tussle. Not enough singularly to specifically point at a cash flow or pay-roll problem, but it has been followed up by what can only be described as an “appeal” for free labour, in a national daily, who in turn, plundered it from the club’s own web-site, so it is hardly madey-up p*sh.
Ironically from a club who made much porridge out of championing the living wage.
So if you look at all those wee things collectively, (If a £5m litigation claim and £2m constructive dismissal claim can be considered wee). then potentially an external to budget circa £7m invoice is on the horizon.
Hey. The money in the form of loans may be there to cover it, but that involves a trade-off.
Common sense decrees that loans are not eternal pennies from heaven, and every unexpected dip into the rain-cloud is pro rata met with a depreciation in how long the loans can continue. That can only lead to administration at some stage, sooner or later.
CORRUPT OFFICIAL
“On the other hand there are many signs, including their own accounts, that finance is urgently required”
i seen this on twitter and if real backs up what you said
but it’s probably a wind up
TONYFEBRUARY 18, 2017 at 00:36
Jeezo Tony…That’s for next season….Is that legit?.. If so I am staggered.
Who says the draw isn’t rigged?.
“If the draw does not go to PLAN“…..Seriously?. Four home games. Is that the plan?
That will be a fair wedge of money to be sitting on, for what is effectively a shared gate. Will they be sharing the interest?
I don’t mean to be cruel, but some of those fans will be deid this time next year.
Ryan
No one on SFM is lionising Ashley as far as I can see. The feeling that TRFC should negotiate with him is both a pragmatic response to the situation and a partial answer to the question you say we are not asking – like how Rangers CAN move forward.
In fact that very question has been asked of David Low several times in our podcasts, and even he couldn’t see any scenario that offered the slim hope of a favourable outcome for Rangers if it did not include stability and investor unity.
Ashley is a man most of us would rather not have at our own clubs, but a choice between him and King is a Trump/Hilary one for me.
The lesser of those two evils is imo the guy who has the means to get Rangers out of the tailspin they are in.
Your attitude to Ashley is understandable, but in business situations, the best practitioners remove their testicles before entering the negotiations. Given the limited options available to Rangers, there just isn’t any alternative (in the short to medium term) other than make peace with Ashley. The upcoming court case involving him is much more serious for Rangers than just having the RR image rights restored. Peace must be made with MA – and I think it will happen.
On the likelihood of an administration, the soft loans are more likely to dry up the longer they make no difference to the underlying financial problem. Therefore an insolvency event, whilst unlikely right now imo, is most definitely MORE likely today than it was two years ago.
I agree that people are taking Warburton’s side today, but I see no evidence that SFM has had a change of attitude in respect of his ability as a football manager. When he arrived here the press hailed him as the finished article, the real deal. The consensus here was ‘too soon to say, wait and see’.
That same attitude still prevails on SFM. MW has done nothing that would make any of us regard him as the either new Stein, nor – as the MSM would now characterise him – the new Liam Brady.
The derision throughout MW’s time has been in the main reserved for the MSM respectively deifying and ridiculing him.
The same dishonest bunch who talked him up to ingratiate themselves with Rangers fans are now rubbishing him for the same reasons.
Yes, there is a lot of antipathy toward Rangers here, but the discussion is far more open than you suggest. The blog’ starting position on the current dispute was, up until the DK statement, pretty much neutral. The club’s emerging position has seen most of us veer in the direction of believing Warburton.
I would invite you to do two things Ryan.
Firstly, what inferences do you draw from the situation of the sackings/resignations, and what positive road out of the current financial bother do you think we are ignoring?
Wishful thinking on either side of the fence here is fine, but in the absence of definitive proof one way or another, it needs to survive scrutiny before becoming accepted wisdom.
CORRUPT OFFICIAL
think it’s nonsense mate,probably wouldve sussed it where it not for amber nectar lol
RyanGoslingFebruary 17, 2017 at 21:53
‘…..but if the starting position is always “Rangers have done something wrong, what was it?” there’s scope to miss other things going on..’
_____________
The real starting point , Ryan G, was the cheating of SDM and the seismic consequences of that, not in terms of the sale to CW, and Administration and Liquidation and death as a Scottish football club, but in the corruption of the very heart of Fotball Governance.
Many of us don’t give a tuppeny toss about the fortunes of the new club.let it live, let it die.
What we DO care about is the absolutely rotten determination of our Football Governance people, supported by the SMSM, tp try to force us all to believe that TRFC is ‘Glasgow Rangers’.
If the SFA etc would simply tell the sporting truth, that TRFC are NOT ‘Rangers’, and are NOT entitled to claim to be, and were then to correct the record books to show that TRFC are the newish club that they are, we would be content with that.
Of course, many of us are disgusted at the fact that successive bunches of chiselling chancers are making money out of a con , and naturally wish fervently that they do not continue to make money, cocking a snoot at every canon of Sporting Integrity, hand in hand with the Football Authorities and the SMSM.
Let the glib and shameless men on the Boards of the SFA and of RIFC/TRFC be got rid of, and let TRFC be recognised for what it is, and we will all be happy.
And Scottish Football can ‘move on’, with some shred of honour.
Ryan,
several angles to take here, most of which are covered above so I won’t repeat.
At what point were the supporters of Raith, Motherwell and Aberdeen supposed to join in this new found solidarity? When they were told about the sporting advantage stitch-up? The debt-defying continuation myth? The £25m assault on the part-time lower leagues? Or simply as we stand and explain to our kids why the sports “super-store” only stocks two Scottish strips apparently regardless?
i am also no lover of Ashley. FWIW I was actually an admirer of Warburton. His football was refreshing if one dimensional and Aberdeen fans, Well and Raith would have accepted 2nd as achievement, not some contra-reality insult.
But you pick your bed fellows and lie accordingly. How apposite in this particular case.
RYANGOSLINGFEBRUARY 17, 2017 at 23:06
Are you assigning relevance to the MSM? The man takes a huge percentage of retail income with no benefit to the club. Let’s put it another way; Mike Ashley takes 90% of the retail revenue of Motherwell FC, is he referred to as “Big Mike” here or is he slated non stop? The man is a terror, a leech on football clubs, and is fundamentally involved in destroying one of the biggest clubs in Scotland. If it was another way, and he was involved in destroying Motherwell or Aberdeen or Raith Rovers, would he be referred to on this forum as “Big Mike” and the club in question instructed to make peace with him?
=========================
Ryan, as Rangers fans I think you have to start asking yourselves why you all sat back and allowed people like Ashley to get involved in the first place. The reason of course is that you allowed Charles Green to get involved n the first place, and he made the deal with Ashley. That is the Charles Green who stood beside the ticket queues effectively blaming the rest of Scottish football for the fact Rangers chose not to pay their taxes. The fans lapped it up. Of course, Green was only there because the Rangers fans applauded the ridiculous figure of Craig Whyte in the front door. In the present day they have lapped up convicted criminal Dave King taking control of the their club. Meanwhile it is still never Rangers fault for anything.
Until the Rangers fans take positive action and actually force decent, honest people into control of their club, I will never have one shred of sympathy for them. Celtic fans in 1994 and Hearts fans in 2014 showed how it should be done. It’s in your hands. If you keep propping up every shyster, con-man and criminal who comes along, your pain will never end in my opinion.