Unless I missed something the news on Friday of Charles Green announcing that Rangers are running at a loss should have sent the alarm bells ringing in the light of all the 'investment' in the club.
Share issues, season books, full houses week after week, merchandise sold, 'major' investors, wage bill of under £8m with no money spent on players transfers of any considerable note with many fee's coming in for compensation etc...
So how is the club running at a loss?
Green said: “The company is currently trading at a loss and the reason for that is our income is halved from coming out of the SPL and Europe and going into the Third Division.
“Typically, Rangers would be close to a £60million turnover per year and we’re down to below £30million now.
Word to the wise Charles. Rangers have only once breached the £60m turnover threshold. The Uefa cup / CL year 2007/8. Rangers peaked at £64m with operating costs of almost £57m. The year before with no sustained Europe income the revenue was £41m (costs were at £43m...also loss making...)
How did Charles intend to turn £60m revenue in a standard SPL season knowing full well that even with inclusion back to the top flight of domestic football, Europe was out of the equation for the first 3 years, let alone in a state of transition from Div 3?
“It’s not an overnight thing. All of those things will take a year or two but the losses are a one-year thing and they won’t be here next year. We’ll grow and grow thereafter."
Ok. So the size of the loss will be evident in the 1/2 year and full year accounts. It might be £1 or it might be £1m but for a guy prone to like his soundbites I would think this may be a warning shot before the announcement of the state of The Rangers FC and PLC... I mean Div 2 next year can hardly generate much more substance than this year can it??
Surprised there has been little on this
posted on 28/1/13
Typically - ie under normal circumstances ie in the top tier.
And in that he would be correct.
Again, WTF is your issue with this? There have been MANY things to get stuck into over the past 2 years, but really, this is nothing.
posted on 28/1/13
DC1 - Now, now. He didn't say "Typically - ie under normal circumstances ie in the top tier"
So please, stop making things up.
However, he DID say "Typically, Rangers would be close to a £60million turnover per year "
and he's wrong,
DC76 I've talked plenty about St Mirren's well-deserved victory already.
posted on 28/1/13
Aye a one line article of congrats written with clenched teeth ....since then it's been remembrance day,inapproriateness,reconstruction and now our finances
This is pickin holes for the sake of it
posted on 28/1/13
comment by Tully* (U16020)
posted 2 hours, 50 minutes ago
In this context 'typically' means 'ususally' or 'characteristically' or 'normally'. an dwhat Tafka pointe dout was that £60m has only been achieved once . He is quite right then to question why Green said 'typically'. It's not typical in fact it is untypical.
-----------------------
No.
What Tafka pointed out was that a PLUS £60m had only been achieved once.
The word "close" would mean that a £53m season could fall into the close category.
But don't let that get in the way of your accusations......
posted on 28/1/13
Shut your mouth and look at my wad
posted on 28/1/13
Comment Deleted by Site Moderator
posted on 28/1/13
Loadsa, Loadsa, Loadsa money...
posted on 28/1/13
Tully - I was explaining the meaning of "typically" when used in this context, for those, perhaps like yourself, for whom English may be a foreign language.....
posted on 28/1/13
Now, now DC1 - younreally must stop making things up!
Do you think Green needs you to interpret what he said???
What he said was ""Typically, Rangers would be close to a £60million turnover per year "
And he's wrong - and as you know you're wrong as well.
posted on 29/1/13
Feck sake Tully, stop being a patronising shitebag
Typically, Rangers would be turning over closer to £60m.
Simple fact.
Now jog on & obsess elsewhere.
How about that treble?