The Rangers soap opera goes on and on.

[Bazzas right boot]

The lack of the income from it will be a big blow, but that's not exactly rocket science either tbh.

Was for some.

[1971fozzy]

Then surely Barca and Real Madrid should be nowhere near European Competition if the rules were enforced?

That's what I thought too

[Big Slim Stylee]

I expect the posters who were ripping me for pointing this out on other threads to appoiligise and acknowledged I was right with regards to rangers and Europe.

 

Rangers need European football.

 

Without it a nail is hammered into thier coffin.

 

I don't even see that as much of a panacea, tbh.  Even if they scrape 2nd - which I don't think they will - they'd have two qualifying rounds in the Europa before the group stages, one most likely against a fairly heavyweight team.  As we know, the actual prize money is fairly paltry which leaves them with gate receipts and a bit of TV, less expenses to - hopefully - somewhere like Outer Siberia for the 3rd round.  It's nowhere near enough to compensate for the black hole plus they'll likely spend to try and ensure they get to the group stages.

 

I love the fact that they're in utter shock that supposed "diddy" teams turn up at their shitehole and have the temerity to give them a game!

[naeclue]

I don't even see that as much of a panacea, tbh. Even if they scrape 2nd - which I don't think they will - they'd have two qualifying rounds in the Europa before the group stages, one most likely against a fairly heavyweight team. As we know, the actual prize money is fairly paltry which leaves them with gate receipts and a bit of TV, less expenses to - hopefully - somewhere like Outer Siberia for the 3rd round. It's nowhere near enough to compensate for the black hole plus they'll likely spend to try and ensure they get to the group stages.

 

I love the fact that they're in utter shock that supposed "diddy" teams turn up at their shitehole and have the temerity to give them a game!

Nice away game in distant Turkmenistan would be best. Expensive trip, spanked when they get there, end up more broke than they started, unable to play friendlies overseas to raise cash.

 

After a couple of years outside the top 6.

Edited November 1, 2016 by naeclue

[Bazzas right boot]

I don't even see that as much of a panacea, tbh. Even if they scrape 2nd - which I don't think they will - they'd have two qualifying rounds in the Europa before the group stages, one most likely against a fairly heavyweight team. As we know, the actual prize money is fairly paltry which leaves them with gate receipts and a bit of TV, less expenses to - hopefully - somewhere like Outer Siberia for the 3rd round. It's nowhere near enough to compensate for the black hole plus they'll likely spend to try and ensure they get to the group stages.

 

I love the fact that they're in utter shock that supposed "diddy" teams turn up at their shitehole and have the temerity to give them a game!

I agree but why risk it, if Dundalk can make the group stages anyone can.

 

Not worth the risk.

[Big Slim Stylee]

I agree but why risk it, if Dundalk can make the group stages anyone can.

 

Not worth the risk.

 

But...but..."Once we's BACK WHEYRE WE BELONG in Euros like....."

[The Gasman]

Directors are underwriting the debt with loans & promissory notes of further cash injections in future, be interesting what Uefa's FFP rules view this as tbh. Especially when European football participation is mentioned in the accounts. [emoji6]

 

My reading of the UEFA rules are that Rangers getting losses underwritten by their Directors / Investors, would not meet the requirements for a European Licence - has King maybe bolloxed it up by gambling on an impossible outcome..?

[Unknown user]

My reading of the UEFA rules are that Rangers getting losses underwritten by their Directors / Investors, would not meet the requirements for a European Licence - has King maybe bolloxed it up by gambling on an impossible outcome..?

My reading is the exact opposite!

 

Edit, from the link you provided above;

 

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

Edited November 2, 2016 by Smithee

[milky_26]

My reading is the exact opposite!

 

Edit, from the link you provided above;

 

that was my reading of it that while they are living at least partly off directors loans they are under the threshold for losses so would be eligible

[The Gasman]

My reading is the exact opposite!

 

Edit, from the link you provided above;

 

 

Currently the club are not "breaking even" and the Directors / Investors have not made direct payments - they've only made loans - so unsustainable debt is building up in contravention of UEFA's rules - or my understanding of them at least.

 

Obviously if these debts are forgiven / written off, or converted to equity, that changes things - but that's one hell of a big ask, and I'm not sure how willing / able these folk may be to do that - but while that debt is still there, I don't think they would qualify for a European Licence.

[Footballfirst]

Currently the club are not "breaking even" and the Directors / Investors have not made direct payments - they've only made loans - so unsustainable debt is building up in contravention of UEFA's rules - or my understanding of them at least.

 

Obviously if these debts are forgiven / written off, or converted to equity, that changes things - but that's one hell of a big ask, and I'm not sure how willing / able these folk may be to do that - but while that debt is still there, I don't think they would qualify for a European Licence.

 

That would be my interpretation too.

[Lincon Premier]

Maybe I have this wrong but they can't change debt for equity without listing on an exchange, or at least if they can, it would dilute the other shares people have and they would have to agree before this was done.

I also can't see debt forgiveness as the loanees are not THAT rich they can afford to write off such sums. That for me is the reason they are loans in the first place and not gifts.

[Space Mackerel]

Or the directors can write them off.

As if that's going to happen

[Geoff Kilpatrick]

Maybe I have this wrong but they can't change debt for equity without listing on an exchange, or at least if they can, it would dilute the other shares people have and they would have to agree before this was done.

I also can't see debt forgiveness as the loanees are not THAT rich they can afford to write off such sums. That for me is the reason they are loans in the first place and not gifts.

They don't need to be on an exchange. They would need the approval of a certain percentage of shareholders for a DFE swap to occur. It isn't as simple as Vlad performing a DFE swap with us as UBIG's shareholding was such that they had complete control.

[Lincon Premier]

They don't need to be on an exchange. They would need the approval of a certain percentage of shareholders for a DFE swap to occur. It isn't as simple as Vlad performing a DFE swap with us as UBIG's shareholding was such that they had complete control.

Basically what I said then eh?

No DFE as they tried it before and the other share holders refused. No writing off the debt as they are not rich enough, otherwise they would have donated the cash and not made it a loan in the first place. The directors may not ask for the cash back any time soon but it will always be on the books as having to repaid at some point.

The list of those willing to throw money away is very small to begin with and they can't keep asking the same ones over and over.

[soonbe110]

Currently the club are not "breaking even" and the Directors / Investors have not made direct payments - they've only made loans - so unsustainable debt is building up in contravention of UEFA's rules - or my understanding of them at least.

Obviously if these debts are forgiven / written off, or converted to equity, that changes things - but that's one hell of a big ask, and I'm not sure how willing / able these folk may be to do that - but while that debt is still there, I don't think they would qualify for a European Licence.

I think this is the correct interpretation. No one has made direct payments or a direct contribution. Not sure the loans are all from owners or related parties either.

[Jamdub]

It is all pish and wind as they will not qualify for Europe anyway, move on....

[Unknown user]

I think this is the correct interpretation. No one has made direct payments or a direct contribution. Not sure the loans are all from owners or related parties either.

They're classified as directors' loans I believe. To me the point would be that the debt is not due to an external body and is therefore deemed to be sustainable.

[Geoff Kilpatrick]

Basically what I said then eh?

No DFE as they tried it before and the other share holders refused. No writing off the debt as they are not rich enough, otherwise they would have donated the cash and not made it a loan in the first place. The directors may not ask for the cash back any time soon but it will always be on the books as having to repaid at some point.

The list of those willing to throw money away is very small to begin with and they can't keep asking the same ones over and over.

It wasn't me who mentioned exchanges! Anyway, the main point is that it is far better to owe money to directors than it is to a bank, for example. Sure, they are hardly stable but there is no reason with the revenue they generate that they shouldn't be. However, their arrogance over their "place" in football is their major problem.

 

They won't go bust but enjoy the new mediocrity from them. I do.

[RobNox]

They're classified as directors' loans I believe. To me the point would be that the debt is not due to an external body and is therefore deemed to be sustainable.

That would be my take on it as well, otherwise would we not end up falling foul of the rules as the FoH funding is treated as a loan?  The club will end up with c ?8m debt to FoH once Ann has been fully repaid along with the contribution to the new stand.

[Footballfirst]

That would be my take on it as well, otherwise would we not end up falling foul of the rules as the FoH funding is treated as a loan?  The club will end up with c ?8m debt to FoH once Ann has been fully repaid along with the contribution to the new stand.

 

Hearts hasn't "lost" ?5m though

[RobNox]

Hearts hasn't "lost" ?5m though

Ah right, so it's losing money rather than being in debt that is the issue.  I wasn't making that distinction.

[Footballfirst]

Ah right, so it's losing money rather than being in debt that is the issue.  I wasn't making that distinction.

They are linked.  As long as you are not losing money, then debt is fine, i.e. if you are servicing your debt then it is ok.

 

However, losing money and increasing debt to service it is a no no.

 

Basically, UEFA is looking for clubs to break even over the medium term, with spending closely linked to income.  They will also allow clubs to take out new debt for capital projects, e.g. new stands, but again you are expected to be able to service the debt without making losses.

[RobNox]

They are linked.  As long as you are not losing money, then debt is fine, i.e. if you are servicing your debt then it is ok.

 

However, losing money and increasing debt to service it is a no no.

 

Basically, UEFA is looking for clubs to break even over the medium term, with spending closely linked to income.  They will also allow clubs to take out new debt for capital projects, e.g. new stands, but again you are expected to be able to service the debt without making losses.

That makes perfect sense now, thanks.

 

So if we decided, after paying off Ann and the new stand, that FoH funding was going to supplement the playing budget, we'd technically be making an operating loss, funded by 'borrowing' from FoH, therefore potentially in that scenario could we fall foul of FFP rules, if the accumulated losses were sufficient to breach the limit?

 

Not that I would support FoH funding being used in that way, as I would always want to see it applied to capital projects, or occasional non-recurring operating costs.

[Footballfirst]

Technically Hearts reported a profit of ?26.8M in 2014 (mostly debt written off by the CVA)

 

The year to June 2015 saw a final loss of ?852K, before the FOH donations Loan.

 

I would expect that the latest accounts, when they are published soon, should show a surplus without FOH money. (helped by the Sow transfer cash).  The forecast at the last AGM was for an EBITDA surplus of ?135K, without Sow's transfer. 

 

I'm pretty sure that Ann Budge will have a longer term strategy to run on a break even basis, but still be looking to profit/re-invest from windfall gains for transfers.

[jambovambo]

Ashley after trademarks again.

 

http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/14839435.Mike_Ashley_tries_to_regain_Rangers_trademarks_in_new_legal_battle/

[Jambo66]

Maybe I have this wrong but they can't change debt for equity without listing on an exchange, or at least if they can, it would dilute the other shares people have and they would have to agree before this was done.

I also can't see debt forgiveness as the loanees are not THAT rich they can afford to write off such sums. That for me is the reason they are loans in the first place and not gifts.

There is no need to be listed. Essentially, all they need to do is exchange the loans for new shares. However, all shareholders need to be offered new shares at the same price.

 

No-one would gift significant sums to a company as such gifts are taxable at 20%.

[Lincon Premier]

There is no need to be listed. Essentially, all they need to do is exchange the loans for new shares. However, all shareholders need to be offered new shares at the same price.

 

No-one would gift significant sums to a company as such gifts are taxable at 20%.

Ok so I was mislead on the exchange part, but the rest of what I said was correct, as no shareholder will allow the dilution of their shares with another issue, even if they get the chance to buy at the same price, the little shareholders can't afford to buy the same number so the price would be diluted.

[Brick Tamland]

Hopefully the Barton soap opera will hurt them and limit their war chest for January.

[Tommy Brown]

Hopefully the Barton soap opera will hurt them and limit their war chest for January.

[Tommy Brown]

Hopefully the Barton soap opera will hurt them and limit their war chest for January.

 

 

 

Not a dig at you BT btw.

I don't think there will be any cash available at the transfer window, which could be fun.

[Stuart Lyon]

Times reporting that Waghorn annoyed because he has not received promised wage increase and has fallen out with Warburton. Could be sold in January to fund spending on new players!

[jambovambo]

https://www.theguardian.com/football/blog/2016/nov/11/joey-barton-rangers-divorce?

 

Fault lies on both sides in Joey Barton?s messy divorce from Rangers

 

 

The 34-year-old thereby enters inauspicious company as among the worst Scottish football signings of the modern era.

 

Rafael Scheidt, Mirsad Beslija, Francis Jeffers, Daniel Prodan and the likes have company.

Edited November 11, 2016 by jambovambo

[jamboy1982]

Times reporting that Waghorn annoyed because he has not received promised wage increase and has fallen out with Warburton. Could be sold in January to fund spending on new players!

Surely no one would pay money for him! He has been found out at spl level, scored a few in the championship but most were penalties

[Jambo dans les Pyrenees]

https://www.theguardian.com/football/blog/2016/nov/11/joey-barton-rangers-divorce?

 

Fault lies on both sides in Joey Barton?s messy divorce from Rangers

 

 

The 34-year-old thereby enters inauspicious company as among the worst Scottish football signings of the modern era.

 

Rafael Scheidt, Mirsad Beslija, Francis Jeffers, Daniel Prodan and the likes have company.

 

No one gets near the Flo though!  Old Rangers spent ?20m on him - transfer fee and wages.

[Jambo dans les Pyrenees]

Times reporting that Waghorn annoyed because he has not received promised wage increase and has fallen out with Warburton. Could be sold in January to fund spending on new players!

 

Seems that according to all media sources the only players that will be leaving Rangers are those who are greedy, duplicitous or who have been found out to not comply with the high moral standards of the club.

 

Funny that.  I thought it was because it is obvious that they don't have a pot to p*** in, and are a vile lot who always blame others for their catastrophic errors of judgement.

[Brick Tamland]

Seems that according to all media sources the only players that will be leaving Rangers are those who are greedy, duplicitous or who have been found out to not comply with the high moral standards of the club.

 

Funny that.  I thought it was because it is obvious that they don't have a pot to p*** in, and are a vile lot who always blame others for their catastrophic errors of judgement.

That's the Scottish media for you and that is why I don't mind reading what Phil triple barrel and johnjames write. The MSM pander to the Sevco fanbase and spin everything to the good of Sevco whilst Phil 3 and JohnJ go the other way. The truth lies somewhere in between but the latter is a better read.

[alwaysthereinspirit]

https://www.theguardian.com/football/blog/2016/nov/11/joey-barton-rangers-divorce?

 

Fault lies on both sides in Joey Barton?s messy divorce from Rangers

 

 

The 34-year-old thereby enters inauspicious company as among the worst Scottish football signings of the modern era.

 

Rafael Scheidt, Mirsad Beslija, Francis Jeffers, Daniel Prodan and the likes have company.

Little unfair to have Beslija on that list. That cross against Dundee Utd...............

[Boris]

No one gets near the Flo though!  Old Rangers spent ?20m on him - transfer fee and wages.

 

29 goals in 53 appearances (according to wikipedia)

 

Seems a decent return.

[Tommy Brown]

29 goals in 53 appearances (according to wikipedia)

 

Seems a decent return.

Yes, always incorrectly brought up as a huge flop.

 

Reality was that they grossly overpaid for him, when he was just better than decent.

[...a bit disco]

Yes, always incorrectly brought up as a huge flop.

 

Reality was that they grossly overpaid for him, when he was just better than decent.

 

Problem was, they tried to play him as a target man when in reality he was an on-the-deck ball player.

 

Very comfy with the ball at his feet. A bit like Sow for us.

[Bring Back Paulo Sergio]

Problem was, they tried to play him as a target man when in reality he was an on-the-deck ball player.

 

Very comfy with the ball at his feet. A bit like Sow for us.

Sow... stoap it eh.

 

[...a bit disco]

Sow... stoap it eh.

 

 

Ah know, eh?

 

[Seymour M Hersh]

Times reporting that Waghorn annoyed because he has not received promised wage increase and has fallen out with Warburton. Could be sold in January to fund spending on new players!

 

You mean current players wages. 

[Seymour M Hersh]

Sow... stoap it eh.

 

 

Were you aware we were offered Sow back on loan but the wages he's now on made it a non starter. 

[Tommy Brown]

Were you aware we were offered Sow back on loan but the wages he's now on made it a non starter.

 

I didn't. Is your source good on this?

[Tommy Brown]

Times reporting that Waghorn annoyed because he has not received promised wage increase and has fallen out with Warburton. Could be sold in January to fund spending on new players!

  

You mean current players wages.

 

This will be an interesting transfer window ahead.

 

Depending on how well Barton negotiated his divorce, it will probably not free up much cash. They are running at a loss.

Unhappy Waghorn being sold would be the only walkable asset anyway.

 

Celtic are off in the distance, do they invest to win 2nd or trust their squad?

For sure the support will not be happy if they don't invest.

Investing means another payday loan.

[Seymour M Hersh]

I didn't. Is your source good on this?

 

Very.

[buzzbomb1958]

I heard this also from the guy Wong who delivers my Chinese to my door

[jambovambo]

I heard this also from the guy Wong who delivers my Chinese to my door

Did Novi recommend him ?