Armageddon? What Armageddon?

By

PhilMacGiollaBhain says: June 16, 2014 at 5:01 pm Compare and …

Comment on Armageddon? What Armageddon? by easyJambo.

PhilMacGiollaBhain says: June 16, 2014 at 5:01 pm

Compare and contrast to your own club.
That is the way to get things sorted.
However there are no ‘onerous contracts’ at Tynecastle hoovering cash out to a certain ballroom dancer in Lithuania.
Be grateful for that….
=======================
I’m extremely grateful that all the new stakeholders in the Hearts are “weel kent fowk”, at least in Scottish business terms.

However, I’m not quite ready to give Ann Budge 100% unquestioning support just yet, although I am probably in a very small minority in taking up that position. While the “fan ownership” concept still looks like it should be delivered in 5 years time, there are a few aspects to the deal with FoH which at least invite some questions.

Ann Budge has given herself not just belt and braces protection for her investment, but seems to have added a 5-point harness, lifebelt, a GPS tracking beacon, a self righting lifeboat and a permanent rope attachment to FoH. I guess that there is no reason why Ann shouldn’t look after her own interests, but some of the conditions attached to the deal have created governance issues for FoH which have yet to be answered.

I may be completely off beam with my concerns (and I hope that is the case), but I do have some niggles about the deal that Ann has set up with FoH. It’s not that I see any significant risk to the deal with FoH falling through, it just the means of getting there does place onerous conditions on FoH.

easyJambo Also Commented

Armageddon? What Armageddon?
Barcabhoy says: June 15, 2014 at 5:41 pm
How would anyone know, when they don’t know who BP & Margarita are . My suspicion is Rizvi is heavily involved, and they will buy and keep under 29.9 % and have another placeman take up available shares , but under the same anonymous control
=========================
Is this the link you are looking for?

RangersNews ‏@RangersInter · 13m
Things you were never meant to see. Rafat has the cash. Does Imran still maintain ‘No paper trails to Rizvi’?

http://i.imgur.com/r0gi5X4.jpg


Armageddon? What Armageddon?
Trying to piece together CG’s shareholdings from the various regulatory announcements

1. Laxey acquired 2,225,000 shares on 12/08/13 from persons unknown (CG?)
2. Laxey acquired 1,000,000 shares on 15/08/13 from persons unknown
3. Sandy Easdale acquired 2,125,000 on 10/09/13 (CG?)
4. Charles Green no longer has a notifiable interest on 10/09/13
5. Laxey acquires a further 3.3M on 20/11/13 from Beaufort Securities
6 Laxey acquires a further 714,000 on 20/12/13 from Charles Green (per agreement from Oct-12)

Transactions 1, 3 and 6 appear to add up to Charles Green’s reported 5M shares.

The dates of the transactions and the size of the respective holdings would seem to back that scenario.


Armageddon? What Armageddon?
It seems that Sandy Easdale wishes to distance himself from Jack Irvine with tonight’s press release.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BqHJE-FCMAELp5n.png:large


Recent Comments by easyJambo

It Is Better To Offer No Excuse Than A Bad One
Allyjambo January 2, 2018 at 14:38
————————
My one overriding memory of the Ibrox disaster was that of the five schoolkids aged between 13 and 15, all from the village of Markinch in Fife, who lost their lives.  I lived just a few miles away and was only 15 myself, at the time.

I remember those losses having a huge impact on the local Fife schools and communities.   


It Is Better To Offer No Excuse Than A Bad One
HOMUNCULUS DECEMBER 28, 2017 at 15:38
It doesn’t matter if it is paid to a trust or your aunt Agatha, you still have to pay the tax. I have no idea why they use the name Agatha, but they do. 
========================
“Aunt Agatha” was used by the RFC QC Andrew Thornhill during the appeals process when discussing the redirection of earnings to a third party.

On a separate point about the share price.  The sale of Ashley’s shares to Club 1872 and Julian Wolhardt was used by King’s QC at the CoS, as an example of shares trading above the 20p price.

The TOP’s QC, however, countered that by claiming that Ashley wasn’t interested in the share price, but was insistent that he received £2m for his shares. To that end, it was pointed out that the price per share paid wasn’t 27p, 27.5p or 28p, but something to the second or third decimal place that ensured that the sum received was not £1,999,999 but a fraction over the £2m figure.  I can’t recall the exact fraction used, but the counter argument put forward seemed entirely plausible.


It Is Better To Offer No Excuse Than A Bad One
Homunculus December 27, 2017 at 22:39
EASYJAMBO DECEMBER 27, 2017 at 22:32
================================
Cheers.
Is there a way of calculating how the issue of new shares reduces the value of the existing ones, or is it not as simple as that. I don’t imagine for a second it is. 
I cannot believe that the sale of new shares does not effect the value of those held by existing shareholders. That would surely be market capitalisation gone mad. 
================================
It’s not as simple as the share price being reduced inversely proportionate to the number of additional shares issued.

The capital value (no of shares x share price) of the club is presently around £16m at 20p a share (80m x 20p), but given that the club also has £16m of debts, you could argue that a debt free club would be worth £32m (or 40p a share).

The value of the shares going forward would depend of the amount of debt written off and the number of shares issued in order to achieve that. e.g. if they double the number of shares to 160m in exchange for writing off half the debt.  The capital value of the club might go up to £24m, as it only has £8m debt, but the value of each shares would probably fall to 15p. (160m x 15p = £24m)

If however, they manage to double the share numbers, write off half the debt, but also raise £4m in new money, then the capital value of the club should go up by £4m (the new money). So you could see the capital value rise to £28m, but still with £8m debt. The share price might then be 17.5p (160m x 17.5p = £28m)

I hope that makes sense. It does to me, but the nuances of share numbers, to debt, to capital raised can easily be lost, if you don’t have an appreciation of where they are at just now, and where they might end up.


It Is Better To Offer No Excuse Than A Bad One
shug December 27, 2017 at 22:05
Great hard fought match tonight.
======================
Sadly, that was two hours of my life I won’t get back.  There was nothing great about it and it was more of a borefest akin to many derbies of yesteryear.  Tom English described it perfectly as “Thud and Blunder”


It Is Better To Offer No Excuse Than A Bad One
Homunculus December 27, 2017 at 18:21
I take it all that has happened is that they passed the resolution allowing them to issue new shares. Those new shares have now been created.
This is them simply notifying Companies House that they have done that, Companies House records show how many shares have been issued.
That has to be done before they can actually sell them to anyone.
Purely a procedural matter I would have though. 
=========================
It’s not got as far as creating the shares. It’s merely confirmation that the Board has the authority to issue shares up to the specified limit.  That authority expires on the date of the next AGM.

The allotment of up to a nominal value of £1,086,376.01, means that new shares equivalent to 1.333 times those currently available can now be issued.  I’m sure that there will be a good reason for the number of new shares being set at that specific level, but I can’t think of one. 


About the author