What They Don’t Want You to Know About Rangers’ Accounts

29
When it comes to boardroom
shenanigans at Ibrox, the most hyped aspect behind the scenes is money. In
Rangers’ case, in particular, how much our directors get.
With accounts released recently,
the numbers have finally been published in black and white, after much feverish
anticipation that the release of these figures would finally explain, reveal
and explore Rangers’ full fiscal standing in the world today along with
aforementioned salaries.
The big ‘scandal’ is the amount
our executives get – that is Craig Mather, CEO, and Finance Director Brian
Stockbridge. In recent months it has emerged that Mather receives £300,000 at a
salary of around £30,000 per month. Stockbridge has supposedly earned, in 13
months, £410,000.
This has attracted ridicule and
feverish outrage from Rangers fans aghast that our two head men receive such
salubrious income. However, there are aspects which put both these numbers into
some sort of context.
Fans outraged to hear Mather
receives £300,000 may be curious to know his counterpart at Celtic Park,
Peter Lawwell, receives around £700,000. Before anyone makes the argument that
the two clubs cannot currently be compared financially, I am afraid they can.
Despite Rangers’ incoming revenue going significantly down, the club’s size and
stature has not, nor has its outgoing costs (enough).
Any Rangers fan disagreeing with
this therefore by logical conclusion considers Rangers a smaller club than
Celtic. If the clubs cannot be
compared financially in terms of outgoing costs, it is presumably because
Rangers are smaller in stature. And as we know, that is not the case.
Consequently the fact the CEO of
Rangers makes less than half the CEO of Celtic’s clearly shows cost-cutting has
taken place and his wage is far less than either Lawwell’s or indeed Rangers’
predecessor Martin Bain’s.
Bain earned around £700,000 as
well. It is a myth to suggest Craig Mather is being overpaid.
Saying it himself:
            “Through the history
of Rangers, I would be the lowest-paid CEO for a long time”
Moving onto Stockbridge, he has
received £209,000 so far in 13 months, his basic salary being £180,000. His
counterpart, Eric J Riley, at Celtic
Park, receives £140,000.
The difference of course is the bonus stated in the accounts with Stockbridge allocated
£200,000 while Riley’s is only £27,000.
However, Craig Mather stated on
1st October that this bonus was waived:
            “If you look at
my pay, there was talk about £500,000 but the actual amount I agreed to in the
end was £300,000. Brian Stockbridge was on £200,000 plus a contractual bonus. Again, quite openly he’s agreed to waive
that contractual bonus of his own accord
.”
Then we have the non-executives.
So far we’ve established outgoing salaries of the executive directors to be
wages of around £500,000 if Stockbridge waived the bonus (700k if he did not
and Mather is lying). So how much are the non-executives getting? Well, the
answer is 0. Yes folks, did you not know non-executive directors only get their
costs/expenses paid? Walter Smith got £50,000 in 13 months, while Ian Hart,
Phil Cartmell and Bryan Smart all got under £30,000. Again, in expenses. None
of the departed or existing non-execs receive any salary at all. Only their
costs.
So, a grand total, in wages,
still of £500,000 in an entire 13 months. Rangers’ entire outgoing board wage
is around the same as Celtic’s sole CEO receives.
If you add the expenses it is a
‘vile’ sum of £640,000. A year. So the entire board, who are to be ‘sacked’ by
the way, earn, ‘allegedly’, altogether, less than Lee McCulloch alone. They, in
total, earn less than Ally McCoist did alone before his self-imposed wage cut.
When you actually scrutinise
these sums and ignore the press hysteria along with fan-outrage, the only
number that confuses is the £200k bonus for Stockbridge stated in the accounts
but publicly addressed by Mather as being unissued. Presumably audited accounts include contractual obligations, even if they were not fulfilled, given the paperwork (including contracts) is what auditors examine, not individuals’ actual bank accounts.
Because, and here is the killer
point: Ally McCoist took his wage cut because he is employed by the club, otherwise known as the ‘sporting’
side of the business which is formally called “The Rangers Football Club
Ltd” (this also ’employs’ the Easdale brothers – non-exec).
Stockbridge and Mather (and Hart
and Smart) and are on the board of the company
called “Rangers International Football Club PLC”. That is the parent
company of RFC Ltd.
This is not to detail whether
these director fellows are any good or bad at their jobs – that is a debate for
another day. It is just pointing out they work for a PLC company which has a
board of directors. They are not employed by the sporting side of the company
and do not require to take paycuts to keep the club afloat. Horrible as it is
to say, their loyalty is not with the club, nor the company particularly as it happens
– the company is just their employer and they expect the going rate for the
position they hold. CEOs and Finance Directors are not cheap.
Even then, they still do not
receive as much as their counterparts at Parkhead.
So any paycut is on the onus of
those loyal to the club. If the current
players had the same inclination and loyalty to the club Ally McCoist does, they too would take wage cuts to help its
costs. Not even universally 50% like he, but enough to help. There are other
ways the club (and company) is losing cash (we know it is
bleeding millions through lost income) but to employ a CEO and Finance Director
and expect them to take considerably less than they would receive elsewhere –
chances are they would quit (or simply not accept the job in the first place) and
the company would have to find someone else. And no CEO or FD would accept the
kind of salary we would like them to. This is the real world. However the
players could accept aforementioned reduction like their manager has.
The board, as mentioned, work for
the company. And that is a separate
entity.
Because here is the ultimate
catch 22:
Anyone yelling ‘sack the board’
and demanding they show loyalty to Rangers FC  with gestures like paycuts (or outright
departure) – it is a contradiction because us Rangers fans (and most reasonable
football fans) consider the company to
be quite separate from the club. The
old company was liquidated as well
we know, but the club lived on.
Consequently if you are
considering the board as part of the
club then it forces that you
consider the company employing them equally entwined. But that company is
only 18 months old.
What I am saying is fans cannot
have their cake here. To consider the board part of the club contradicts the very fact Rangers fans do not consider their
club just over a year old.
Do they really also believe
Rangers could employ a new CEO at less than £300,000 to ‘save costs’ who would
also be effective enough at his job to stop the company bleeding money too?
Where is this incredibly good (well he just ‘magicked’ millions out of thin air
after all) and economically viable (apparently he is willing to work that magic
for about £50,000) alternative? Do they really believe the likes of Paul
Murray, Scott Murdoch, Frank Blin or Alex Wilson would achieve all this (get
paid so much less and stem the financial losses while at it) in exactly the
same circumstances the existing board suffer?

There is also the rather amusing further catch 22 that many fans forget; if they got their wish and the ‘board got sacked’, contractually the company would have to pay them off. It is called severance pay, and Charles Green was paid it – something supporters outraged about. Yet they want the rest to follow suit – overlooking that little problem that firing these directors will bleed the club/company yet more money in the process. So, to save the club cash, it will cost hundreds of thousands. Anyone else see the flaw here?

Many supporters also remain
oblivious to the cash these existing directors (exec and non-exec) pump into
the club out their own pockets, sums I will not go into. But they are far from
freeloaders.
I am the first to confess I am
not a financial manager, and stocks, shares, trade and NASDAQ are all double
Dutch to me.
But I can do my sums and compare
similar situations and it is abundantly clear that whether or not they are good
at their positions, none of Rangers’ PLC directors are overpaid. In fact it is
quite plausible they are underpaid given
how much Bain, Green, and Lawwell got/get. Green, by the way, only received
around £200,000 more than Lawwell does. Unlike Lawwell to Celtic, Green brought
investment into Rangers, and managed
to form a new company which controls the sporting side, something Rangers fans
were desperate to see happen, especially once the CVA was rejected. So did he
not possibly ‘earn’ a little profit? I personally do not begrudge the man, and
still consider he was harshly treated by the fans.
It is very easy to spin stats,
but far less to spin genuine numbers.
Admittedly depending what the
press headline and first paragraphs say I suppose.

29 COMMENTS

  1. I accept the comparison made between Rangers and Celtic in terms of size and stature however, Celtic have had access to a far higher level of income i.e. Champions league and transfer fees. Are the board claiming that they are entitled to the same level of wages and bonuses because the club has won the third division? Size and stature count for nothing. And if you need an example of how this attitude can prove disastrous look at Leeds Utd. No, Income streams and realistic expenditure are much more important.

  2. M8 I would be more than happy if our CEO got 300 grand a year, but only if the cunt knew what he was doing. Mather? having a laugh.

  3. Hilarious ! The logic that a CEO is effectively underpaid because to not go along with that would admit that Rangers are a smaller club than Celtic Brilliant ! Lets increase his salary to £1m then we can show we are bigger than them !! £300 k is more than enough to runa company/club in the 3rd tier of scottish football. There are CEO 'sof large scottish companies making much less than that with much more experience of management and governance than Mather

    Also Non execs are not just paid expenses WS was paid 50k in FEES , it is true it is not a salary but its certainly not expenses either. It is a fee for neing a member of the board.

  4. This is the second blog of your's which I have read and strongly disagreed with. Your views do not, to me, reflect those of the wider Rangers support and make me question your motivation.

    Peter Lawwell, like him or not, is the CEO of a company which is currently at the peak of the field within their domestic market. A company which has vastly larger turnover than Rangers and showed a decent profit in the last set of accounts. He has extensive experience in his role and has shown himself to be an extremely shrewd operator, considering his obvious influence with the SPFL, SFA, UEFA and Scottish media. The same cannot be said of Mather and Stockbridge, who are both footbal nobodies. An suitably experienced CEO and FD could be had for a fraction of what we paid out (nearly £2 million in executive rumeneration for the period).

    To say an executive's salary should be related to a company's outgoings, regardless of turnover, is frankly the most ludicrous suggestion and laughably naive. This would mean that the more loss making a company is, the more highly rewarded a CEO or FD should be. No company would last for long in those circumstances.

    Brian Stockbridge was awarded and has taken the bonus discussed, that is money which has left the company. If it had not, it would not have appeared in the accounts. He may have chosen to return it to the company, post July '13 and if he does it will be reflected in the next set of accounts. This money was not rejected, because he didn't feel he earned it. The only reason Mather has had to make the statement he did is because of the huge amount of scrutiny to which Stockbridge and the other executives have (rightly) came under for the financial gouging of Rangers.

    Charles Green is indeed entitled to make money from a resurgent Rangers. He was awarded 5,000,000 x 1p shares following the IPO, current value ~ £2.4m. This should have been Greens reward, not the nearly £1m salary bonus and severance which he should never have received. Incidentally, do you know how the 5 million shares were paid for. Not out of up-front cash, but taken as a deduction form his final wage packet.

    Craig Whyte used the Ticketus money to gouge Rangers, Green & Co are using the IPO money for the same thing. In the end the club suffers either way.

    When we run out of money, at the start/middle of next season, what will we do then? Mather and Stockbridge will be long gone before the real financial ruin is uncovered.

    By the way, your use of the club/company argument is specious at best. Its all the same money and once it's spent it's spent, and the running of RFC Ltd is the only business of RIFC. I suspect this argument (along with the comparisons to Celtic) have been thrown in as an emotional mis-direction from the basic flaws in your analysis.

  5. You miss some vital points throughout and that is Rangers went into administration, are in the process of liquidation ,are losing around £1million a month and revenue is down. Celtic are none of those thing and revenue is up! So carry on spending, sign a load of players in January and pay them over the odds, continue to overpay your non-playing staff too and ignore all the signs.

  6. 'When we run out of money' 'we are a third division club'. Listen to yourselves! Its like SNP scaremongering!! We are the biggest club in our bitter little country and will soon be back at the top of it. These guys are making the best of a bad situation & put THEIR money in. These others Murray & co are stirring the pot with nothing to back it up. Stop listening to their tales & let the board get on for now. They wont be here forever but back them NOW!

  7. Somebody needs to sort this shit out. If we ever play each other again it'll be a miracle. Get some tight fisted hard bastard in there, get the ship on course and head in our direction. The joke has worn off now. I dont give a shit when you were registered as a club/company whatever. The fans were registered at birth and will die supporting any Rangers. Now get it fucking sorted. I'm getting old and need the old firm games to keep the old heart racing. I'll be seeing you , sooner rather than later I hope.

  8. Very good piece. The best I have read since the accounts. Mainly due to it simply stating facts and not being hysterical like those in the rebel camp. Well done again

  9. Cellic have money! Are you guys having a laugh? They haven't paid corporation tax for 12 years and are massively in debt, and you use them to belittle the bloggers piece? Ohh the fucking irony!

  10. Setanta liquidation process has just confirmed the old club no longer exist-they died, but then the sensible people always new that.

  11. So you all fell for the "same club" shit, now unless im mistaken for that to happen then the companies act would have to have been repealead,and i cant recall that happening in the last year.

    The spivs have stripped the corpse bare and when they leave there will be nothing left,Ibrox and MP will be rented back to the new knights who take over at approx 3million a year for the next 25 years.

    If and when the monstrosity that plays at Ibrox reach the dizzy heights of playing the famous Glasgow Celtic they will be soundly humped and its looking like its gonna be ten in a row.
    Notwithstanding the fact that the HMRC UTT will by all probability find Murray and co guilty of using EBTs and all Scottish football fans will be looking at the SFA to strip the old dead club of any win achieved when using EBTs

    • Keep dreaming you twonk, HMRC threw a last desperate appeal to save face at getting humiliated for using public money to attack a football club for using the Law as it stood then to pay players.
      When their latest and final attempt is thrown out probably in 2 years, through lack of credibility in Lawful facts, your bitter and twisted creed can scurry back down septic way and think of some other fantasy scenario to drudge up and throw out there hoping someone else might take up the cause.
      Although it won't be from HMRC as the out of touch officials who requested the appeal with no legal grounds will be looking for alternative employment when the Government see the bill for such a long and unworthy which hunt .

  12. Everybody forgot that Celtic are up the swanie aswell.!!! Have a wee gender at their accounts and barring a miracle their heading towards admin…Why are they not spending all their zillions, cause their up to their eyes in debt

    • what a dreamer…14m loss and you want to look at Celtics accounts….there is only one team heading for admin…..a 2nd admin…

    • Sorry to have to point out your mistake but this will be their first admin as they are a new company. The first lot were liquidated; in other words, they're dead.

    • Nah! no admin. Oh yeah and don't be sorry just be factual or witty or something else that you are not.

  13. I'm just not buying the sentiment of this article, as it appears to have been written by the CEO and FD, reading more like an advertorial. As a loyal supporter and someone who owns a few shares, what is needed here is a transparent CEO and a commercial FD, who is tough on expenses and can sort out commercial deals that at the moment just aren't either performing or are absent. We need someone like Christian P as CEO and a tough, no nonsence FD and if we need more money lets raise it, but would I line the pockets of the current board and the answer is NO…

  14. A couple of things. What I'd like to know is the breakdown of the nearly £7million pound IPO 'costs' associated with raising the IPO monies.

    Were the IPO costs not broken out in detail because some of the trail they lead back to might be toxic…call me suspicious. Along the way it is becoming clear that Whyte tried to engineer getting the club's assets and ownership through third parties, including Green. How close is Stockbridge to Green ? Mather to be fair actually invested substantial monies, has backed Ally on getting a decent team onto the park, and is maybe, just maybe, getting more bad press than is due.

    And, much as I don't like our less than green with envy Eastenders, the Lawell comparison is frankly way off – he knows how to run a club, if you don't believe me, believe the numbers. Wee Fergus McCann wouldn't have lost nearly £15 million either….

  15. I read to "Peter Lawwell, receives around £700,000. Before anyone makes the argument that the two clubs cannot currently be compared financially, I am afraid they can"

    Then gladly fucking stopped reading.

    ..because I'm not afraid to say they CAN be compared financially right now.

  16. Good article,but far too sensible for the rebels to understand.They I'm afraid to say, cant even grasp the concept of non recurring costs in the accounts.
    They are so wide of the mark with all this protest nonsense its untrue.Half of them have not even got a clue ,they have been brainwashed with lies and smears and have no alternative plan going forward.

  17. Very Very good sensible piece that is wasted on some. Ok lets look at the stature side of things.

    Rangers dropping to the third Division does that mean Ibrox somehow shrinks ?? that the lights cost a third of the price to run that Our stadium is no longer rated ason of the top 25 in the world ??

    As has been said by many many folk the loss incurred this year was due to non recurrent cost. That means they dont happen next year. What part of business start up eludes the fans.

    You start a business up (or take one over thats bust) you have to have a capital outlay in your first year that covers non recurrent costs like property like vehicles like tooling etc etc then there is the articles and business plans and the legals again all non recurrent. In normal business it called capital outlay.

    I hear fans complain "AH but that fucker Green and Ahmed goat there money back and some" SO Fecking what. It is nothing strange that orginal investment is paid back before profit made again I say so what. If your a share holder ask your questions of the company If your not then what happens is none of yer fooking business. Or are you going to say because your a fan you have a say. I am a fan of bay watch but i dont get to say what size pam andersons tits are.

    Now lets look at another piece of dross churned up. Transfers. A free transfer does not mean that the player plays for the love of it, in many cases a free transfer gets more in wages than those who are sold as clauses in contract etc. But what is forgotten by the sheeple is that a lot of the contracts were transferred over and had to be honoured at the previous rate. Now if the sheeple want the team to be on the park and winning to stop cries of Ally must go ( remember last year same folk different poster) then the team has to be built and it has been.

    And to turn round and say Rangers are not of the same or higher stature as Cetlic is a joke. Who are you trying to kid,, we have higher crowds a better stadium a better training ground, higher revenue in merchandise higher uptake on season tickets, oh wait thats another thing these spivs as they are called were so interested in lining their own pockets that the season tickets went up to pre admin levels ,,, o oh didnt happen

    For people that cry loyalty to a club and country it seems an outrageous way of showing it. Destabilize the club they love so that Malcom Mini bar and his devil spawn can snapped up shares at a low price for their 0.71% investors.

    Finally all i can say and hope is the sheeple stop sucking the baws of dingbat and inky man and start reading for themselves and maybe an orginal thought might just find it way in

  18. You suggest the players could take a wage cut. What you should be questioning is who offered them the outrages salaries their on a present? Don't forget most of these guys don't support Rangers and have come to the club because their earning more than double the wage they received at their previous club.

Comments are closed.