Rangers are in the midst of a period of sizeable executive change as 49ers Enterprises and Andrew Cavanagh prepare to takeover the Ibrox boardroom.
The US-led Rangers takeover is edging closer with the latest reports suggesting a deal could be done as early as May, with the club already looking ahead to next season.
There are still plenty of t’s to be crossed and i’s to be dotted as Rangers brace for change, but the situation at the club does not remain static with upheaval continuing apace.
Rangers are on the hunt for a new sporting director and will wait to appoint one before deciding on who will become the 20th permanent manager of the club.
There are also some financial movements which have been picked up in the press and on social media, with a recent share issue raising £3.6m for the Ibrox coffers.
But after news of a loan deal with MacQuarie Bank turned heads amongst Rangers fans, some are wondering if the Ibrox club have had to box clever after a recent unexpected expense.
Photo by Jan Kruger - UEFA/UEFA via Getty Images
Photo by Jan Kruger – UEFA/UEFA via Getty Images
Rangers pin MacQuarie bank loan against transfer fees
Documents lodged with Companies House show that Rangers have taken out a loan with Aussie lenders MacQuarie Bank with the payments pinned against future transfer fees.
MacQuarie have a history of lending to British football clubs with the likes of Burnley and Watford taking out loans with the lender in the past.
MORE RANGERS STORIES
Whilst the reason for the loan remains unclear, former Rangers chairman John Bennett has previously suggested the Ibrox club wouldn’t pay the interest rates attached to these deals.
“We have had numerous approaches, including in November. It is so interesting, they come to you and it could be equity, it could be family offices, it could be banks such as MacQuarie Bank and they are active in the football space. They can’t touch our terms,” Bennett explained at the AGM in November 2021.
“What I have been saying and a number of us have been saying is ‘Ok, those are interesting approaches’. I can tell you that one of them was at 13 per cent per annum.
“We’re not paying that. We are no longer paying nine, we are no longer paying eight, six is the new benchmark.
“If those providers can come in and beat that at two levels – a lower coupon, because six is the new benchmark, and we have driven the cost of funding down to six.
“I think that is one of the lowest numbers in the whole of football in Britain for loans. But also on security. I can assure you they want a whole lot more security and a higher coupon.”
Patrick Stewart clear on Philippe Clement compensation
Whilst the amount of money Rangers have loaned from MacQuarie remains unclear, the situation has given rise to plenty of speculation.
Even if MacQuarie have met Rangers’ 6% terms, banking off future transfer fees seems like a risky strategy given the Ibrox side’s inability to bank a player trading profit in recent seasons.
Some have also been left wondering if the compensation package agreed with Philippe Clement has anything to do with the loan.
Rangers sacked Clement in February after a string of poor results and a disastrous domestic season which has once again left the club trophyless.
After the Scottish Cup defeat to Queen’s Park, Rangers CEO Patrick Stewart claimed that the decision to retain Clement was not financially motivated.
“I’ve said consistently now, we are not refusing to make changes because of finances,” Stewart told RangersTV. “So all I can do is reiterate that, but that’s absolutely not the case.
“To keep somebody in position to avoid a termination payment, that’s just a false economy. So that’s not a way to run a club and that’s not what we’re doing.
“Decisions have been made for the long-term interest of the football club, not to save money.”
Nonetheless, the sacking of Clement was an unexpected expense and came after Rangers had handed the Belgian manager a new four-year contract on the eve of the Premiership season.
Reports have claimed that Rangers paid at least £1.2m to sack Philippe Clement but some outlets have suggested the pay-off was substantially more than this figure.