i dont think phil massively understands this...
=========
he's a f...ing lunatic
he puts his dreams in a blog and people donate money for the pleasure of reading them.
imagining donating to such people
comment by JFK - Trebs oan, Rebs oan. (U8919)
posted 17 seconds ago
i dont think phil massively understands this...
=========
he's a f...ing lunatic
he puts his dreams in a blog and people donate money for the pleasure of reading them.
imagining donating to such people
----------------------------------------------------------------------
They do though 😁
comment by Laudrup:we should all have staunchness (U12366)
posted 23 seconds ago
comment by JFK - Trebs oan, Rebs oan. (U8919)
posted 17 seconds ago
i dont think phil massively understands this...
=========
he's a f...ing lunatic
he puts his dreams in a blog and people donate money for the pleasure of reading them.
imagining donating to such people
----------------------------------------------------------------------
They do though 😁
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Are bears still struggling with the simplest of concepts that these accounts (unaudited to be fair although why there improve upon audit is beyond anyone's guess) show a clear loss very similar to the same period last year despite the increase in revenue from being in the top league with sell out crowds and progression in the cup.
Even looking at the simple "operational profit" of £300k this shows an ROI of 1.8%!!!!
This with dependence upon soft loans to anable cash flow which simply allows the business to exist never mind anything else.
How the fwck do you grow that?
That's the question that should be asked.
As for the 12 month accounts to come, I think they'll make for very grim reading.
it was sustained by soft loans and couldnt have an underlying positive performance because it wasnt in the top league. Im not defending ashley - he is a bawsack
now the clubs cashflow is sutained by soft loans and has a better underlying performance by being in the top league. Of course mark warburton played a huge part in it...
no question governance is better (albeit far from good) and that is a big step
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
comment by PointyBirds (U8853)
posted 3 minutes ago
Sounds like a pure consiracy to me
---
Oh, Laudrup. You're just taking the p now.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
ointy
From now on the be known as
Ointy
to be fair laudrup, dave king is your phil
Oh pointy birds, oh Pointy Pointy.
Anoint my head, anointy nointy.
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
last years performance at celtic was very poor curly. fortunately this years will be about as strong as it is possible. the lack of furore id suggest is because the overall strength of the business can support such a loss (albeit id doubt if it could season on season!)
I had also thought this was pre player sales...
And 1.8% is fine on a much bigger turnover - well kind of fine - and i dont know rangers current treasury position but to manage these margins on your turnover you would want maybe ability to borrow another 5m? Guesswork as is all of this fun and distracting conjecture
comment by Curly 💩 - I'm mumpsimus and I know it.... (U1103)
posted 7 seconds ago
Are bears still struggling with the simplest of concepts that these accounts (unaudited to be fair although why there improve upon audit is beyond anyone's guess) show a clear loss very similar to the same period last year despite the increase in revenue from being in the top league with sell out crowds and progression in the cup.
Even looking at the simple "operational profit" of £300k this shows an ROI of 1.8%!!!!
+++++
It was an operating profit Ginger
Celtic showed an operating loss of 4.5m last year and I never noticed such furore
1.8% ROI for a football club is not too shabby, what would you expect it to be?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Indeed it was and I stated that as such.
The difference between the clubs Curly is that Celtic are able to significantly increase revenue (as clearly demonstrated) without depending upon soft loans to ease cash flow. They have a number of lines of credit as they are a healthy business. Indeed you yourself have lauded Peter Lawell for such fantastic governance.
Rangers have no line of credit. They are maximised out in attendances. They cannot afford to significantly improve the playing side. They are essentially at the limit of what hype can bring in.
So the question is how does anyone see how this can improve to be able to be credible challengers? Which was my original point. In fact I think I said my usual "Discuss" at the end.
From this, why does King continually spout nonsense about winning leagues and the manager about winning a European trophy when there is no realistic end in sight to the current set of circumstances? That's the bits we find amusing and scoff at. The finances are the finances.
As for 1.8% ROS, that's the return on operational profit. The company made a loss. That's the bottom line so this operational profit is fairly redundant when an overall loss is made.
pfft - what do you know ginger - you made a foolish bet with me that is going to cripple your 6 monthly unaudited accounts...
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
comment by Curly 💩 - I'm mumpsimus and I know it.... (U1103)
posted 33 seconds ago
So what would be the 'normal' ROI for a football club?
I would guess it is a negative number
And having 'line of credit' if just financial speak for being able to borrow money, we are quite fine in that regard
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No idea but once again your ROI is negative, not positive. The club made a loss. That's it. No idea what's normal and would tend to agree that probably more than most would maybe make a loss.
But here's the rub.
Rangers have no line of credit. None at all. Soft loans are not credit. They are what they say they are. Loans. To be repaid unless, hang on...
you're trying out those EBT things again aren't you?
comment by simon_bhoy - standing unseen right in front of... (U16215)
posted 3 minutes ago
pfft - what do you know ginger - you made a foolish bet with me that is going to cripple your 6 monthly unaudited accounts...
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes I did.
Let's chat about that.
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
comment by Curly 💩 - I'm mumpsimus and I know it.' (except on a Wednesday, that is my obstreperous day ) - ITS JIST A BIG CLIQUE N'AT (U1103)
posted 8 seconds ago
So what would be the 'normal' ROI for a football club?
I would guess it is a negative number
And having 'line of credit' if just financial speak for being able to borrow money, we are quite fine in that regard
----------------------------------------------------------------------
depends on the club is the answer
i doubt any german club is a negative ROI whereas i suspect almost every EPL club strugglesmadrid and barca is almost certainly negative
its your ability and agility (pure check me) to change that quickly that is the issue and a good bit of that relates to turnover.
not completely sure you are fine re finance but that is of course potentially the case. On such low turnover and margins your ability to service finance is nil and therefore it must be of a "soft" nature
comment by Gingernuts (U2992)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by simon_bhoy - standing unseen right in front of... (U16215)
posted 3 minutes ago
pfft - what do you know ginger - you made a foolish bet with me that is going to cripple your 6 monthly unaudited accounts...
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes I did.
Let's chat about that.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Im listening to offers...Id accept charitable donations...
comment by Curly 💩 - I'm mumpsimus and I know it.... (U1103)
posted 9 seconds ago
Rangers have no line of credit. None at all. Soft loans are not credit. They are what they say they are. Loans. To be repaid unless, hang on...
+++++
And a 'line of credit' is one of those money making trees that give you free money every time the sun comes out
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I see. It's going to be one of those Curly days is it? Hmmmmm
You know very well what a line of credit is and you know very well there will be charges. It's how other clubs with a negative ROI ease their cash flow.
Rangers can't get any of that. Nobody will loan them money bar the soft loans from the board. If anyone thinks that's sustainable then fine, carry on.
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
comment by Curly 💩 - I'm mumpsimus and I know it.... (U1103)
posted 14 seconds ago
not completely sure you are fine re finance but that is of course potentially the case. On such low turnover and margins your ability to service finance is nil and therefore it must be of a "soft" nature
+++++
Of course
And getting European football and abnormal retail income would greatly help
One can only pash with the coq one has
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Of course and putting on my non wum hat I totally agree.
The question from all of this was and still is, how does this improve to reach the ridiculous targets and expectations of the chairman?
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
comment by simon_bhoy - standing unseen right in front of... (U16215)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by Gingernuts (U2992)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by simon_bhoy - standing unseen right in front of... (U16215)
posted 3 minutes ago
pfft - what do you know ginger - you made a foolish bet with me that is going to cripple your 6 monthly unaudited accounts...
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes I did.
Let's chat about that.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Im listening to offers...Id accept charitable donations...
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Good man.
£300.
Sign in if you want to comment
Profit and loss
Page 3 of 5
posted on 24/3/17
i dont think phil massively understands this...
=========
he's a f...ing lunatic
he puts his dreams in a blog and people donate money for the pleasure of reading them.
imagining donating to such people
posted on 24/3/17
comment by JFK - Trebs oan, Rebs oan. (U8919)
posted 17 seconds ago
i dont think phil massively understands this...
=========
he's a f...ing lunatic
he puts his dreams in a blog and people donate money for the pleasure of reading them.
imagining donating to such people
----------------------------------------------------------------------
They do though 😁
posted on 24/3/17
comment by Laudrup:we should all have staunchness (U12366)
posted 23 seconds ago
comment by JFK - Trebs oan, Rebs oan. (U8919)
posted 17 seconds ago
i dont think phil massively understands this...
=========
he's a f...ing lunatic
he puts his dreams in a blog and people donate money for the pleasure of reading them.
imagining donating to such people
----------------------------------------------------------------------
They do though 😁
----------------------------------------------------------------------
posted on 24/3/17
Are bears still struggling with the simplest of concepts that these accounts (unaudited to be fair although why there improve upon audit is beyond anyone's guess) show a clear loss very similar to the same period last year despite the increase in revenue from being in the top league with sell out crowds and progression in the cup.
Even looking at the simple "operational profit" of £300k this shows an ROI of 1.8%!!!!
This with dependence upon soft loans to anable cash flow which simply allows the business to exist never mind anything else.
How the fwck do you grow that?
That's the question that should be asked.
As for the 12 month accounts to come, I think they'll make for very grim reading.
posted on 24/3/17
it was sustained by soft loans and couldnt have an underlying positive performance because it wasnt in the top league. Im not defending ashley - he is a bawsack
now the clubs cashflow is sutained by soft loans and has a better underlying performance by being in the top league. Of course mark warburton played a huge part in it...
no question governance is better (albeit far from good) and that is a big step
posted on 24/3/17
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
posted on 24/3/17
comment by PointyBirds (U8853)
posted 3 minutes ago
Sounds like a pure consiracy to me
---
Oh, Laudrup. You're just taking the p now.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
ointy
posted on 24/3/17
From now on the be known as
Ointy
posted on 24/3/17
to be fair laudrup, dave king is your phil
posted on 24/3/17
Oh pointy birds, oh Pointy Pointy.
Anoint my head, anointy nointy.
posted on 24/3/17
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
posted on 24/3/17
last years performance at celtic was very poor curly. fortunately this years will be about as strong as it is possible. the lack of furore id suggest is because the overall strength of the business can support such a loss (albeit id doubt if it could season on season!)
I had also thought this was pre player sales...
And 1.8% is fine on a much bigger turnover - well kind of fine - and i dont know rangers current treasury position but to manage these margins on your turnover you would want maybe ability to borrow another 5m? Guesswork as is all of this fun and distracting conjecture
posted on 24/3/17
comment by Curly 💩 - I'm mumpsimus and I know it.... (U1103)
posted 7 seconds ago
Are bears still struggling with the simplest of concepts that these accounts (unaudited to be fair although why there improve upon audit is beyond anyone's guess) show a clear loss very similar to the same period last year despite the increase in revenue from being in the top league with sell out crowds and progression in the cup.
Even looking at the simple "operational profit" of £300k this shows an ROI of 1.8%!!!!
+++++
It was an operating profit Ginger
Celtic showed an operating loss of 4.5m last year and I never noticed such furore
1.8% ROI for a football club is not too shabby, what would you expect it to be?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Indeed it was and I stated that as such.
The difference between the clubs Curly is that Celtic are able to significantly increase revenue (as clearly demonstrated) without depending upon soft loans to ease cash flow. They have a number of lines of credit as they are a healthy business. Indeed you yourself have lauded Peter Lawell for such fantastic governance.
Rangers have no line of credit. They are maximised out in attendances. They cannot afford to significantly improve the playing side. They are essentially at the limit of what hype can bring in.
So the question is how does anyone see how this can improve to be able to be credible challengers? Which was my original point. In fact I think I said my usual "Discuss" at the end.
From this, why does King continually spout nonsense about winning leagues and the manager about winning a European trophy when there is no realistic end in sight to the current set of circumstances? That's the bits we find amusing and scoff at. The finances are the finances.
As for 1.8% ROS, that's the return on operational profit. The company made a loss. That's the bottom line so this operational profit is fairly redundant when an overall loss is made.
posted on 24/3/17
pfft - what do you know ginger - you made a foolish bet with me that is going to cripple your 6 monthly unaudited accounts...
posted on 24/3/17
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
posted on 24/3/17
comment by Curly 💩 - I'm mumpsimus and I know it.... (U1103)
posted 33 seconds ago
So what would be the 'normal' ROI for a football club?
I would guess it is a negative number
And having 'line of credit' if just financial speak for being able to borrow money, we are quite fine in that regard
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No idea but once again your ROI is negative, not positive. The club made a loss. That's it. No idea what's normal and would tend to agree that probably more than most would maybe make a loss.
But here's the rub.
Rangers have no line of credit. None at all. Soft loans are not credit. They are what they say they are. Loans. To be repaid unless, hang on...
you're trying out those EBT things again aren't you?
posted on 24/3/17
comment by simon_bhoy - standing unseen right in front of... (U16215)
posted 3 minutes ago
pfft - what do you know ginger - you made a foolish bet with me that is going to cripple your 6 monthly unaudited accounts...
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes I did.
Let's chat about that.
posted on 24/3/17
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
posted on 24/3/17
comment by Curly 💩 - I'm mumpsimus and I know it.' (except on a Wednesday, that is my obstreperous day ) - ITS JIST A BIG CLIQUE N'AT (U1103)
posted 8 seconds ago
So what would be the 'normal' ROI for a football club?
I would guess it is a negative number
And having 'line of credit' if just financial speak for being able to borrow money, we are quite fine in that regard
----------------------------------------------------------------------
depends on the club is the answer
i doubt any german club is a negative ROI whereas i suspect almost every EPL club strugglesmadrid and barca is almost certainly negative
its your ability and agility (pure check me) to change that quickly that is the issue and a good bit of that relates to turnover.
not completely sure you are fine re finance but that is of course potentially the case. On such low turnover and margins your ability to service finance is nil and therefore it must be of a "soft" nature
posted on 24/3/17
comment by Gingernuts (U2992)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by simon_bhoy - standing unseen right in front of... (U16215)
posted 3 minutes ago
pfft - what do you know ginger - you made a foolish bet with me that is going to cripple your 6 monthly unaudited accounts...
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes I did.
Let's chat about that.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Im listening to offers...Id accept charitable donations...
posted on 24/3/17
comment by Curly 💩 - I'm mumpsimus and I know it.... (U1103)
posted 9 seconds ago
Rangers have no line of credit. None at all. Soft loans are not credit. They are what they say they are. Loans. To be repaid unless, hang on...
+++++
And a 'line of credit' is one of those money making trees that give you free money every time the sun comes out
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I see. It's going to be one of those Curly days is it? Hmmmmm
You know very well what a line of credit is and you know very well there will be charges. It's how other clubs with a negative ROI ease their cash flow.
Rangers can't get any of that. Nobody will loan them money bar the soft loans from the board. If anyone thinks that's sustainable then fine, carry on.
posted on 24/3/17
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
posted on 24/3/17
comment by Curly 💩 - I'm mumpsimus and I know it.... (U1103)
posted 14 seconds ago
not completely sure you are fine re finance but that is of course potentially the case. On such low turnover and margins your ability to service finance is nil and therefore it must be of a "soft" nature
+++++
Of course
And getting European football and abnormal retail income would greatly help
One can only pash with the coq one has
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Of course and putting on my non wum hat I totally agree.
The question from all of this was and still is, how does this improve to reach the ridiculous targets and expectations of the chairman?
posted on 24/3/17
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
posted on 24/3/17
comment by simon_bhoy - standing unseen right in front of... (U16215)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by Gingernuts (U2992)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by simon_bhoy - standing unseen right in front of... (U16215)
posted 3 minutes ago
pfft - what do you know ginger - you made a foolish bet with me that is going to cripple your 6 monthly unaudited accounts...
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes I did.
Let's chat about that.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Im listening to offers...Id accept charitable donations...
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Good man.
£300.
Page 3 of 5