Rangers are Rocking; Scottys Financial insight inside.

[thplinth]

The six month accounts from RFC 'this time last year' appeared very late but we were treated in the media very early with the headline news that RFC had narrowed the loss versus the previous year to 0.5 million. And they did...

https://media.rangers.co.uk/uploads/2016/03/Financial_Review_070316.pdf

That was their operating loss but ... a lot of blah blah... the bottom line was a loss of 288k. Note by the time we got to a full twelve months results the loss was up to 3.3m... six months 288k, 12 months 3.3 mill.

https://media.rangers.co.uk/uploads/2016/10/Rangers-Reports-and-Accounts-2016.pdf

Now ok today we are told after six months again the result is not a loss of 288k but a loss of 238k (wow huge improvement) versus this time last year... the year that ended on a 3.3m loss.

https://media.rangers.co.uk/uploads/2017/03/RIFCInterimDec16-1.pdf

I do think RFC will maybe turn a profit this year, barely... but I would not be crowing about these results at least not yet.

 

Edited March 23, 2017 by thplinth

[thplinth]

You know I was just thinking about this but I think I should be appointed the Financial Director of RFC.

Trump style I will make Rangers great again. 

#MRGA.

[RenfrewBlue]

18 minutes ago, thplinth said:

The six month accounts from RFC 'this time last year' appeared very late but we were treated in the media very early with the headline news that RFC had narrowed the loss versus the previous year to 0.5 million. And they did...

https://media.rangers.co.uk/uploads/2016/03/Financial_Review_070316.pdf

That was their operating loss but ... a lot of blah blah... the bottom line was a loss of 288k. Note by the time we got to a full twelve months results the loss was up to 3.3m... six months 288k, 12 months 3.3 mill.

https://media.rangers.co.uk/uploads/2016/10/Rangers-Reports-and-Accounts-2016.pdf

Now ok today we are told after six months again the result is not a loss of 288k but a loss of 238k (wow huge improvement) versus this time last year... the year that ended on a 3.3m loss.

https://media.rangers.co.uk/uploads/2017/03/RIFCInterimDec16-1.pdf

I do think RFC will maybe turn a profit this year, barely... but I would not be crowing about these results at least not yet.

 

I don't think anyone is crowing. It's not like we're going to be rolling in cash anytime soon. 

[thplinth]

46 minutes ago, RenfrewBlue said:

I love how these figures are treated as untrustworthy by posters on here, who probably couldn't wait to crow about them last year when they showed a loss. 

The great hypocritical TAMB. ? 

 

8 minutes ago, RenfrewBlue said:

I don't think anyone is crowing. It's not like we're going to be rolling in cash anytime soon. 

?

[thplinth]

On 3/19/2017 at 10:23 PM, RenfrewBlue said:

Aye because only the Rangers fans display a pack mentality? 

You do post some pompous guff but this is definitely one of your funniest. 

I'm sure Thplinth will be along to defend you though. ?

Defend phart?

 Funny.

(edit: he sure as does not need me! )

Edited March 23, 2017 by thplinth

[EddardStark]

Little steps and all that. The key thing is we have backers willing address to liquidity /working capital issues. This is not sustainable long term but its buying us some time.

[Parklife]

So the press release was a lot of shit and it's actually a loss?  

[thplinth]

45 minutes ago, Parklife said:

So the press release was a lot of shit and it's actually a loss?  

Now now... yes it was a loss but this is half time. 

But you are right. "Operating loss" here is like looking half way down a barbill and then not adding up the rest... "Operating profit / loss" here means "sub-total" where you see it so keep working on... 

-----

RFC figures are interesting. They are spending every penny they make. To the hilt, sunk to the nuts etc

Edited March 23, 2017 by thplinth

[Guest BlueGaz]

On 18/03/2017 at 10:57 PM, thplinth said:

 

[Guest BlueGaz]

44 minutes ago, Parklife said:

So the press release was a lot of shit and it's actually a loss?  

Only release I have seen shows a loss.  Can't see anything that shows a profit. What I think may have happened, is people seen the figure 238 at the profit/loss column, and it was in black bold, bit it was actually (238), which to me shows a loss.

[RenfrewBlue]

2 hours ago, thplinth said:

 

?

Think we are at cross purposes. My original post was aimed at the usual suspects who jumped on last year's loss and bandied it around as proof that the current regime was doing badly. 

This time when it's a profit the same formats start the "who did the accounts, Dave King?" comedy gold routine instead. 

My 2nd post was because I thought you were suggesting Rangers fans were crowing about the latest figures. Which we're not, as far as I'm aware. 

From this post I'll assume I misinterpreted your post. 

[Parklife]

10 hours ago, BlueGaz said:

Only release I have seen shows a loss.  Can't see anything that shows a profit. What I think may have happened, is people seen the figure 238 at the profit/loss column, and it was in black bold, bit it was actually (238), which to me shows a loss.

I'm just going by the initial reports i seen online, to be fair. BBC article stated Rangers reporting an operating profit. 

[Guest BlueGaz]

3 minutes ago, Parklife said:

I'm just going by the initial reports i seen online, to be fair. BBC article stated Rangers reporting an operating profit. 

Yep, thats correct, but operating profit is different to the overall figure.

[sbcmfc]

Jim White got Dave King coming on at some point this morning.

I'm sure he'll get stuck right in....

[Pool Q]

'So, Dave King, you're great aren't you!'

[ShedTA]

15 hours ago, thplinth said:

Now now... yes it was a loss but this is half time. 

But you are right. "Operating loss" here is like looking half way down a barbill and then not adding up the rest... "Operating profit / loss" here means "sub-total" where you see it so keep working on... 

-----

RFC figures are interesting. They are spending every penny they make. To the hilt, sunk to the nuts etc

not just every penny they make. have they not also taken nearly £3m in soft loans? They are doing almost as badly as Utd.

[Guest BlueGaz]

15 hours ago, RenfrewBlue said:

From this post I'll assume I misinterpreted your post. 

You were talking about last year compared to this year - pretty obvious really.  He can't see it for looking.

[ShedTA]

I saw an article from an interview with dave king earlier too. Its quite bizarre stuff:

Rangers chairman Dave King has revealed he is considering legal action against former manager Mark Warburton over his contentious departure from the Ibrox club last month. King believes there is “no case” for the League Managers’ Association to pursue Rangers, as has been mooted, over the exit of Warburton, his assistant David Weir and head of recruitment Frank McParland on 10 February.All three men have subsequently moved to Nottingham Forest, which King feels was an “engineered outcome” of the events which led to Rangers announcing they had accepted the resignation of Warburton and his colleagues. Through an LMA statement, the three men then denied they had resigned. But King, who in a withering assessment of Warburton has also suggested he was too “thin-skinned” to cope with the job at Rangers, is adamant he was provided notice of their intention to quit. The South Africa-based businessman, in Glasgow this week to meet Warburton’s replacement Pedro Caixinha, remains irked that Rangers missed out on compensation from Nottingham Forest for the remaining two and half years of the Englishman’s contract. Rangers also had to pay compensation in order to recruit Portuguese coach Caixinha before his contract at Qatari club Al-Gharafi expired in May. I’d have been surprised if he [Warburton] didn’t end up at Nottingham Forest,” said King. “My disappointment is that the way it was managed resulted – as matters stand at the moment – in Rangers not getting compensation which normally we’d have been entitled to if the management team had walked out. Once again we’re on the wrong side of the cashflow, through no fault of our own.“There is no case (for the LMA). The case really is what Rangers now do. I’m going to have a legal discussion. On the face of it, whether it’s Nottingham Forest or the management team, it’s a possibility but we just have to see how we feel about that.“It certainly appears to me that what you’ve got now is an engineered outcome, to the benefit of Nottingham Forest. I was approached directly, when they [Warburton, Weir and McParland] were in negotiation with Nottingham Forest to ask if Rangers would waive compensation. That was the first I was aware they were even talking to Forest.“My response is the same as I am saying today, that we would not waive the compensation because if the management team does walk out and we have to replace them, we might have to pay compensation for our new manager. “But I said I’d be flexible in how they paid the compensation. They might not have to pay it all up front but maybe spread it over a period of time. That was taken out of our hands with the whole resignation debacle and they’ve all ended up at Nottingham Forest without us getting compensation and we’ve had to pay compensation. That’s exactly where I didn’t want to be.“You can’t un-resign. They resigned, we accepted the resignation, they decided to un-resign. We said ‘you can’t un-resign’ and they have all ended up at Nottingham Forest. I think one can join the dots quite clearly.”King admits his own relationship with Warburton had deteriorated over the course of this season.“It just changed a little bit towards the end because, quite frankly, I didn’t appreciate some of the comments that I felt were getting into the media that were emanating from Mark,” he added. “So I wasn’t as confident having a confidential conversation with him, quite frankly. “He didn’t owe me anything but I just think he came into the club and the club gave him a chance to showcase himself. He did very well for the club and the club did very well for him. Things were going well but I think it could have been handled a lot better. If Mark really felt he wanted to get away he could have had that conversation with me or with [managing director] Stewart Robertson or whoever he wanted to speak to. He could have said ‘look, it’s not working, I’m finding Glasgow very tough’, or whatever the reason was, and we could have planned the exit. We could have done it differently. But I don’t think it should have happened in such a ramshackle manner.“I don’t think it was a mistake appointing Mark. He did a lot of good at the club. If I look at what Pedro is inheriting in terms of the academy and the structures he likes, Mark was very instrumental in putting that in place. I just think the step up was very difficult for him this year.“Some of his player choices – and remember they were his choices – proved difficult for him as well. Only Mark can really answer it, but I just think it got tough for him and he didn’t see his future here. Mark’s temperament is different, as you know. It’s not a criticism. He is a little bit thin-skinned. In an environment like Glasgow, having a thin skin is certainly not an advantage.”

 

[Fairbairn]

44 minutes ago, ShedTA said:

I saw an article from an interview with dave king earlier too. Its quite bizarre stuff:

Rangers chairman Dave King has revealed he is considering legal action against former manager Mark Warburton over his contentious departure from the Ibrox club last month. King believes there is “no case” for the League Managers’ Association to pursue Rangers, as has been mooted, over the exit of Warburton, his assistant David Weir and head of recruitment Frank McParland on 10 February.All three men have subsequently moved to Nottingham Forest, which King feels was an “engineered outcome” of the events which led to Rangers announcing they had accepted the resignation of Warburton and his colleagues. Through an LMA statement, the three men then denied they had resigned. But King, who in a withering assessment of Warburton has also suggested he was too “thin-skinned” to cope with the job at Rangers, is adamant he was provided notice of their intention to quit. The South Africa-based businessman, in Glasgow this week to meet Warburton’s replacement Pedro Caixinha, remains irked that Rangers missed out on compensation from Nottingham Forest for the remaining two and half years of the Englishman’s contract. Rangers also had to pay compensation in order to recruit Portuguese coach Caixinha before his contract at Qatari club Al-Gharafi expired in May. I’d have been surprised if he [Warburton] didn’t end up at Nottingham Forest,” said King. “My disappointment is that the way it was managed resulted – as matters stand at the moment – in Rangers not getting compensation which normally we’d have been entitled to if the management team had walked out. Once again we’re on the wrong side of the cashflow, through no fault of our own.“There is no case (for the LMA). The case really is what Rangers now do. I’m going to have a legal discussion. On the face of it, whether it’s Nottingham Forest or the management team, it’s a possibility but we just have to see how we feel about that.“It certainly appears to me that what you’ve got now is an engineered outcome, to the benefit of Nottingham Forest. I was approached directly, when they [Warburton, Weir and McParland] were in negotiation with Nottingham Forest to ask if Rangers would waive compensation. That was the first I was aware they were even talking to Forest.“My response is the same as I am saying today, that we would not waive the compensation because if the management team does walk out and we have to replace them, we might have to pay compensation for our new manager. “But I said I’d be flexible in how they paid the compensation. They might not have to pay it all up front but maybe spread it over a period of time. That was taken out of our hands with the whole resignation debacle and they’ve all ended up at Nottingham Forest without us getting compensation and we’ve had to pay compensation. That’s exactly where I didn’t want to be.“You can’t un-resign. They resigned, we accepted the resignation, they decided to un-resign. We said ‘you can’t un-resign’ and they have all ended up at Nottingham Forest. I think one can join the dots quite clearly.”King admits his own relationship with Warburton had deteriorated over the course of this season.“It just changed a little bit towards the end because, quite frankly, I didn’t appreciate some of the comments that I felt were getting into the media that were emanating from Mark,” he added. “So I wasn’t as confident having a confidential conversation with him, quite frankly. “He didn’t owe me anything but I just think he came into the club and the club gave him a chance to showcase himself. He did very well for the club and the club did very well for him. Things were going well but I think it could have been handled a lot better. If Mark really felt he wanted to get away he could have had that conversation with me or with [managing director] Stewart Robertson or whoever he wanted to speak to. He could have said ‘look, it’s not working, I’m finding Glasgow very tough’, or whatever the reason was, and we could have planned the exit. We could have done it differently. But I don’t think it should have happened in such a ramshackle manner.“I don’t think it was a mistake appointing Mark. He did a lot of good at the club. If I look at what Pedro is inheriting in terms of the academy and the structures he likes, Mark was very instrumental in putting that in place. I just think the step up was very difficult for him this year.“Some of his player choices – and remember they were his choices – proved difficult for him as well. Only Mark can really answer it, but I just think it got tough for him and he didn’t see his future here. Mark’s temperament is different, as you know. It’s not a criticism. He is a little bit thin-skinned. In an environment like Glasgow, having a thin skin is certainly not an advantage.”

 

The biggest issue I have with that is the lack of paragraphs!! 

[dipped flake]

basically it is saying he wants out and wishes he had never got involved; Stirring words

[Fairbairn]

13 minutes ago, dipped flake said:

basically it is saying he wants out and wishes he had never got involved; Stirring words

He's pretty much said from the start that he didn't want to be doing this long term.  Nothing new there.

[Parklife]

Quote

“My disappointment is that the way it was managed resulted – as matters stand at the moment – in Rangers not getting compensation which normally we’d have been entitled to if the management team had walked out. Once again we’re on the wrong side of the cashflow, through no fault of our own.“There is no case (for the LMA).

Shouldn't have accepted the resignation then, ya phukwit. 

Edited March 24, 2017 by Parklife

[sbcmfc]

6 minutes ago, Parklife said:

Shouldn't have accepted the resignation then, ya phukwit. 

Yeah, I actually found myself agreeing with him to a point, then remembered that.

Although handled badly by Rangers, to be fair to them, Warburton and Forrest don't come out of this very well either.

Was appointing the caretaker until the end of the season all a charade to avoid paying Rangers compo?

[RenfrewBlue]

6 hours ago, sbcmfc said:

Yeah, I actually found myself agreeing with him to a point, then remembered that.

Although handled badly by Rangers, to be fair to them, Warburton and Forrest don't come out of this very well either.

Was appointing the caretaker until the end of the season all a charade to avoid paying Rangers compo?

The King interview sounds good until you analyse the resignation but we're getting compo bit. It just doesn't make sense. 

[macy37]

Three board members removed yesterday? Not sure if it from the holding company, the club or the incubator?