End of the Road for King?


Rangers’ last 10 cup draws   11/02/2017    SC r5    Morton     (H) 21/01/2017   …

Comment on End of the Road for King? by easyJambo.

Rangers’ last 10 cup draws
11/02/2017    SC r5    Morton     (H)
21/01/2017    SC r4    Motherwell    (H)
20/09/2017    LC q/f    Queen of the South    (H)
09/08/2017    LC r2    Peterhead    (H)
05/03/2016    SC q/f    Dundee    (H)
06/02/2016    SC r5    Kilmarnock    (H)
10/01/2016    SC r4    Cowdenbeath     (H)
28/11/2015    CC s/f    St Mirren    (H)
20/10/2015    CC q/f    Livingston    (H)
22/09/2015    LC r3    St Johnstone    (H)
They have played some away games in that time but only in the group stages of this season’s League Cup and a replay against Killie in the Scottish Cup.  They have also played “drawn” semi finals at Hampden in the League Cup and Scottish Cup.
The odds on 10 straight home draws in all competitions is 1023/1  (one chance in 1024)

easyJambo Also Commented

End of the Road for King?
A couple of points for clarity on the ongoing court discussions.

The CVA was never mentioned by anyone while I was in court.  The only event of 14 June 2012 mentioned was the sale of the business and assets by the administrators. Anyone who didn’t know the background, could reasonably assume from what was said/not said in court that a CVA wasn’t even attempted, far less failed.

Professor Vaughan Williams was asked about his own betting habits given that he considered himself well versed in betting odds. He described his occasional bets on Norwich City as a “hobby” then posed a question to the court (perhaps rhetorical) whether his bet on Trump to become president was different   He had done various bits of work in relation to the US election and admitted make a bet on Trump because he thought that the odds on offer represented good value.

End of the Road for King?
The “transitive” verb first came up yesterday when Ms Poole referred Prof Vaughan Williams to the Chambers Dictionary definition of “relegate”.  Sandison objected saying that the the dictionary had a (v.t.) notation, meaning “verb transitive” and that Ms Poole was seeking to reference the verb in a “passive” form. 

Lord Bannatyne, in his own inimitable way, shook his head incredulously at the prospect of Counsel debating transitive and passive forms of verbs in front of a witness  and allowed Ms Poole to continue.  

End of the Road for King?
I thought the most telling statement from Rod McKenzie this morning was his response to a question from Mr Sandison.

Counsel asks “Was the football team called Rangers FC ever relegated from the SPL?”

McKenzie responds “that would require me to make a judgement on what is “relegation” and I’d rather not do so”

Now that response came from the same person who admitted, in court, that he had drafted most of the rules of the SPL and had advised the SPL on many matters, yet as the person probably most qualified to make such a judgement, he is still unwilling to do so.  You would have to ask why. 

Edit: I’m glad to see that Ms Poole picked up on this point:
James Doleman ‏@jamesdoleman 4m4 minutes ago
Poole notes that even the SPL rules have a definition of “relegated’ notes Rod McKenzie, who drafted the rules wouldn’t answer Q about it.

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
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