The SPFL— the case for revolution, evolution and a case of the Hamilton Whackies !

Avatar By

And coverage of Murray’s departure & subsequent open letter and …

Comment on The SPFL— the case for revolution, evolution and a case of the Hamilton Whackies ! by jockybhoy.

And coverage of Murray’s departure & subsequent open letter and NewGers response is here:

“His departure is fuelling fears that Rangers is once again entering a period of instability of the kind that led to its administration and liquidation last year and its plunge into the bottom tier of the Scottish game.”

jockybhoy Also Commented

The SPFL— the case for revolution, evolution and a case of the Hamilton Whackies !
As neepheid says, that was part of the article. It’s quite a decent sized article from the Leisure correspendent, but it’s mostly stuuff that’s been covered extensively on here. I put it up more as evidence that the FT is looking again at Rangers – who can forget Alphaville’s “Ship of Theseus” blogspot…

Gaz – as I say, I was quoting the article. I know, you know, we on TSFM all know how they got there.

The SPFL— the case for revolution, evolution and a case of the Hamilton Whackies !
From today’s

New balls
Bless Rangers, the Glasgow football club, for coming up with an altogether fresh approach to the governance of listed companies. Since floating on Aim in December at 70p a share, apart from losing more than a quarter of its value, it has lost its chief executive, and as of last week its chairman and Phil Cartmell, one of the non-executive directors on the six-man board. Mr Cartmell has been replaced by local businessman and bus operator James Easdale. A perusal of Companies House entries suggests that now just one of the Rangers’ non-executives has significant experience as a main board director of a listed UK company. Gers has also replaced Cenkos as nomad and broker. A spokesman says “it was time for a fresh approach”. Small Talk has seen staler fish at the supermarket.

The SPFL— the case for revolution, evolution and a case of the Hamilton Whackies !
Auldheid says: July 2, 2013 at 6:15 pm
jockybhoy says: July 2, 2013 at 10:03 am

If a player is on £3k a week over a 40 week contract you would have to lay off 6 admin folk on £20k a year to get the same saving of £120k. If you want to save £1.2M then its 10 players to every 60 admin jobs…I reckon that anything over £1k a week for a player is an extravagance they cannot afford but an on field performance risk to the business they are afraid of taking.”

Agreed, but my point is that redundancies should have been made last year. I too think it is downright irresponsible for NewGers management to be signing new players givemn their aparent cash burn(hence my “still paying too much for the revenues it brings in” comment) but the Bears’ fans superiority complex is too unstable to risk not cruising these lower divisions – IMO the board are gambling by spending today’s money on players to ensure a steady flow of season tkt money through years of the lower division climb. I personally think they will go bust again, if not by the end of the season, certainly next summer, barring a huge cash injection.

And Ecobhoy (and others) – I was genuinely interested in a metaphysical debate relating to the “club” – sorry it seems to have riled so many folk. I think it’s relevant because it is something that may be played out at Tynecastle, at Ibrox again soon and indeed in other “clubs” across the country.

The reality is “Rangers is still the old club because we Bears say it is” is the argument that is holding sway and no-one – from the SFL through to the BBC can be bothered with the grief they cop for sticking their head above the parapet/going against the grain. If there is no punishment for walking away from debts, if a club can run up huge losses and just walk away with no (longstanding) punishment then the whole thing will just repeat and repeat, ad nauseum.

Recent Comments by jockybhoy

Who Is Conning Whom?
“Take away non-reoccurring expenditure like stadium repairs and Sports Direct compensation and add historical retail profits plus some extra football prize money” – so take away actual costs and add hypothetical revenue and hey presto the books will balance!

With financial acumen like that, you should be on the NewGers board!

The Vice Closes
After these distressed assets, only of use to a football team, actively playing in a professional league, were bought, there were immediately revalued:
“Revaluation increase on land and buildings is put at £33.98 million in total, though the club also notes if those properties were to be sold at that value the tax bill would be £7.8 million.
…Finance director Brian Stockbridge said: “A revaluation process was undertaken during the period; Ibrox stadium and Murray Park were revalued at £40 million, and intangibles (brand and er history? JB) were valued at £19 million on acquisition.”
Administrators of the oldco Rangers, Duff & Phelps, sold the “intangible” assets to Green’s consortium for £1.” Source:

Arguably the fact that it was sold to a football team who could make use of the facilities there was a greater value than £4.5m that wasn’t realised, but that may be being churlish.
What we do know is that all the assets of worth were bought for £5.5m and that included everything, property, brand, history, fixtures and fittings, seemingly playing contracts (people are assets too – I’ve been sold in my time! JB) as well as prize money apparently owed to the previous entity…
For the full breakdown I refer you to the sadly missed Paul McConville site:
its clear the assets were hugely undervalued when sold. 

The Lost Voice of the Armageddon Virus
Hasn’t Chris Sutton also said Alves is going to Ibrox? He probably was tipped off by someone and obviously King’s statement was well crafted. Annual PR overdrive.
Remember what they say “loose lips sell tix”

THAT Debate, and the Beauty of Hindsight
IIRC if a loan is received to a company doesn’t it appear on both sides of the balance sheet? As cash in the assets but as a liability in loans liable? Now the interest would make the liability higher than the loan under normal circumstances but if the loan is interest free it’d just be equivalent. Why would anyone do this? As has been said the requirement is for short term cash, the presence of longer term liabilities is apparently of little consequence. Unfortunately, as we know, these liabilities add up over time, until the straw breaks the camel’s back…
I am sure my fellow Essex boy EBC can steer me right on this.

BTW these lessons apparently unlearned down Ibrox (and indeed Hampden) way…

THAT Debate, and the Beauty of Hindsight
I wonder how much will be due to NewGers players in terms of bonuses for qualifying for Europe? If they do fall at an early hurdle in the Europa League then that may leave them further out of pocket, given costs incurred and low prize money…

About the author