Nils Koppen must respond to the Rangers AGM inquiry after the finance expert delivers a “pitiful” transfer declaration.

Rangers AGM is never a dull affair, especially when there are issues both on and off the pitch and the upcoming gathering could be an explosive one.

With four key executive roles vacant, Philippe Clement is lacking top level support as manager, however, the promotion of Nils Koppen to technical director should help to an extent.

One of Koppen’s three main priorities is the January transfer window, but a look back at the summer highlights another question that must be asked – why were nine players sold/allowed to leave Rangers on loan for just £810,000?

Why is Rangers transfer fees received figure so low?

With the help of finance expert Adam Williams, Rangers News looks at why – when the figures reported in the press amounted to around £4.6m – did such a small fee get included as a note in the post-end of year additions as a receivable amount due from incoming transfer fees:

“I think the confusion here is coming from the discrepancy between the reported fees and the profit on the player disposals used for the purposes of the accounts,” suggested Williams.

“Take Lammers, for example. The £2.5m he was reportedly sold for initially suggests you should see a figure bigger multiple times greater than the £810,000 based on his exit alone.

“But for the purposes of the accounts, he is an asset with a book value and any sale price is deducted from that book value.

“That is separate to the cash Rangers may actually have received. Rangers bought him for £3m on a four-year deal and his book value decreases by £750,000 each year – i.e., three million divided by four equals £750,000.

“So, after exactly one year at Ibrox, his book value is £2.25m as £750,000 of his initial fee has been amortised.

“If you then sell him for £2.5m, as has been reported, you make a £250,000 profit for the purposes of the accounts. That £250,000 figure is the one that is goes towards the £810,000 sum we see in the notes for the accounts.

“As Cantwell was a recent signing too, his book value will still have been pretty high, so any fee from his sale to Blackburn would have to be worked out relative to that.

“But even so, this looks like a pretty pitiful return to generate from five player sales, one of whom was an academy graduate with zero book value, so all of his sale fee would be profit.

“It is a similar situation for Goldson, who had been at the club for six years so his book value would have been next to nothing.

“Different clubs have different accounting practices, and there could be performance-related bonuses from the sales that they can’t guarantee will be satisfied but, in all probability, will.

“Either way, I think it’s the type of thing that is worth clarifying.”

What theories are there for the low transfer fees received figure?

There are various fan theories:

a) That the figure in the accounts is wrong.

b) That the board has leaked inflated transfer fees.

c) That Rangers really had a fire sale in the summer and sold senior players for considerably less than their market value.

Point a) is almost impossible, because the books get audited and signed off by a third party.

With regards to the fees reported by the press, this is possible, but only if all the initial fees came out from the same or similar Scottish based sources.

In the case of Sam Lammers, it was the Dutch press that led the way with claims of a £2m fee with add-ons.

For Todd Cantwell, Alan Nixon was the journalist who broke the “bargain” fee Rangers received for the playmaker when he joined Blackburn Rovers and a free transfer hasn’t been ruled out.

Robbie McCrorie and Scott Wright didn’t cost Rangers a lot of money and they’ve maybe moved on bonus or performance related deals and, at 32-years old and one of the club’s biggest earners, it would be understandable if Connor Goldson’s fee was sacrificed given that they got good value for money out of the veteran centre-half.

However, £810,000 for the nine players who were sold or left on loan in the summer is a pittance, especially when the man responsible has just been promoted.

Nothing adds up, which is why the question has to be asked.