Toonpack

Has he really f***ed them over or did he save them ?? Where'd they be without his loans ?? He's f***ed them man. Long term contracts that they can't get out of and loans came with massive benefits to him. King could have been in a lot earlier if it wasn't for Ashley. Toon Pack says: King HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA Invisible when they were in Admin, made their situation worse by encouraging the "stay away", he held the door open for Ashley man!. Oh aye, King was also on the board that led them to oblivion. Why shouldn't loans have benefits, why didn't King offer them loans which were being sought in a panic WAAAAY before Ashley. Why didn't King underwrite the last share issue (that was under subscribed) he could have been in control back then. Facts are: Ashley lent them money interest free but nailed the retail on the back of that, yet, last Rangers Retail accounts show the retail profit doubled from the year before. Oh aye, he's got them screwed down for his benefit BUT without him they'd have been fucked months ago. We know Ashley's a cunt, but he's not a glib and shameless convicted criminal. It's pretty plain to see if you can look at it dispassionately and ignore the spin.

Has he really fucked them over or did he save them ?? Where'd they be without his loans ??

On the 31st Jan they were 2nd, 16pts from 1st and 6pts from 5th (with 3 games in hand) (wouldn't get in playoffs) http://www.statto.com/football/stats/scotland/championship/2014-2015/table/2015-01-31 Today they are 3rd, 26pts from 1st and 9pts from 5th (1 game in hand) http://www.statto.com/football/stats/scotland/championship/2014-2015/table/2015-03-28 What a turnaround! At the end of January they were in a tailspin and looking like very probably dropping out of even the playoff places.

From a Rangers forum (someone with common sense for a change): 1. If someone had said in Jan when promotion was looking like a distant dream that we could get 5 loan players in with no upfront loan fee's but the cost would be £500k and that would only be payable if we achieved promotion, then I can guarantee that most of us would have been happy to take the gamble and at that point it would have been madness to even consider saying no with the increased revenue that promotion will bring being way in excess of the £500k. Just keep the deal in that context and I'm sure we would all have been very happy and seen it as a good bit of business. 2. The second issue is where we have the real problem and that's the suitability and availability of the five players themselves but even then its not something we can fully appraise until the end of the season. Three of the loans will probably never kick a ball, one may come back from injury but who knows but what if that last player is the difference between promotion and another year in this league! Is it a price worth paying if one of those loans actually makes the difference and gets a hat-trick against Hibs in the play-off and scores a last minute wonder goal against Motherwell to send us up!

Profit yes, cash on its own no. I imagine there will be some write down in player value (Ben Arfa, MYM, Santon perhaps) along with some 'consultancy costs' in relation to various club/business development ideas and some training ground improvements. Wouldn't surprise me to see costs in relation to obtaining hosting rights for the Rugby World Cup games in there as well. Of course this will all be neatly wrapped up in admin or professional fees 25m though It's a huge chunk of money. It may take a bit of searching but the answer will be buried somewhere in the notes to the published accounts. Or hopefully there could be a huge chunk of "cash at bank" which means the profit's been massaged but the cash is still there.

I'd take a "creatively" low profit, for tax reasons, coupled with £25 Mill cash at bank though (not holding my breath) Can you fiddle money you've just hoyed into the bank as a cost like? Oh aye, if you think about it that's basically what amortisation is, it's a book cost but it's not real cash leaving the bank. But without saying "the stadium fell apart" I don't see it stretching to £30m on that front. I suppose what we have here is a sea change. We've gone from a club that would cut (accounting and real) costs wherever possible to move the club towards profitability on the books. Now we have a profitable club the accounting department switch all their effort to making costs as high as possible (without the club actually incurring real costs) to avoid getting into a tax paying situation. This is how much the new TV deal for 13/14 has added to each clubs reported operating profits from 12/13... I "hope" they're not real costs and that the bank balance is extremely healthy.

Fairly standard practice for a business with a sole owner. Not "hiding money" but creative accounting. Maximising Profit in accounting terms is only something a business looking to appease Investors looking for dividends does. Ashley isn't looking to sell either. I've said this before in the thread but "Profit" is merely an opinion and is open to legal manipulation. Giving HMRC Cash however, is a fact and one MASH will be looking to avoid as much as possible. Again, like a lot of your posts when context-free it makes perfect sense, the context here is that Ashley is pissing all over his customer base in order to make the profit and then hiding it Utter c*** of a man. He can only "hide it" as you say, within the club, if he takes it out that makes it visible and therefore unhidden.

I'd take a "creatively" low profit, for tax reasons, coupled with £25 Mill cash at bank though (not holding my breath) Can you fiddle money you've just hoyed into the bank as a cost like? Oh aye, if you think about it that's basically what amortisation is, it's a book cost but it's not real cash leaving the bank.

I'd take a "creatively" low profit, for tax reasons, coupled with £25 Mill cash at bank though (not holding my breath)

His food costs maybe ??

Can't be that, that would be a capital expense (as was mentioned earlier in thread) and would only hit profit/loss via depreciation over it's lifetime. Just like player amortisation. There's something else.........

True, I guess they may have grown "creatively". Balance sheet will be interesting.

Only the full accounts will tell the story, makes sense to supress/manipulate declared profits as much as is creatively possible to defer any tax liability by not using up accumulated losses for as long as possible.

YAY!!! let's charge Spurs prices

Because it's a huge asset, that he uses for advertising, and he might like watching football? Actually nah, must be because he cares about the club. He must visit his flagship stores all the time I guess That's EXACTLY the same definitely. I mean he should go sit in SD for 90 mins and see how that fairs. You ever thought the bloke might just be bored of an afternoon/evening? with his money and business empire, his sort NEVER get bored.

If I had his cash there's better places I could think of to rock up to and be treated like a King, places involving sun and scantily clad young gold-diggers. Sure he visits plenty of those too. He hasn't got time, he's too busy visiting his assets

If I had his cash there's better places I could think of to rock up to and be treated like a King, places involving sun and scantily clad young gold-diggers.

Because it's a huge asset, that he uses for advertising, and he might like watching football? Actually nah, must be because he cares about the club. He must visit his flagship stores all the time I guess

Happy Face is basically stating what I hope is actually happening, i.e. that he's playing the long game and thinks he can make us better/successful his way without it costing him any more money. For someone who cares not one iota for the club, supposedly, why does he attend games more often than not, I just can't get my head around that. If I was a multi-billionaire, I wouldn't turn up to see something I couldn't give a shit about every week or so, much better places I could go with my endless cash and my private jet.

We really do. Wish we could do the same thing They can think that but it's just not true. Like he's going anywhere on anything but his own terms, he controls everything that makes any money for them outside of ticket sales.

f***ing hell. That will learn him. Why do the SFA do this? such a pathetically low amount Because it's new Rangers related and they are corrupt

I still think his arse kicking at rangers will somehow have a negative effect on us It's not anywhere near an arse kicking, he still controls all the bits that make money and holds security over the assets, win win for Mikey boy.

It's not a sport any more, it's simply a product to be consumed.

Anything but, they've burned through tens of millions to beat teams of plumbers, postmen and fishermen. Now that they're in a league with some other full time teams they're screwed.

In his interview he's basically said just that. I'm working my notice, I'm happy to do what I'm told till then anyway. Reading Rangers forums, the feeling is generally 1) McDowall is so clueless that no-one else could select lineups any worse anyway. However, being told he has to fit 5 players in he may not know what to do with means he may just play even more players out of position. 2) These 5 lads must be better than the people who are playing already because otherwise Newcastle would have released them to work at McDonalds by now 3) McDowall should keep his stupid mouth shut. 4) It's still a shitty precedent for the board to select the team. Have you read the Bears Den, that place is hilarious in a 19th century sort of way.