Enough is enough


I didn’t go along to the CoS today for what …

Comment on Enough is enough by easyJambo.

I didn’t go along to the CoS today for what was always going to be a short hearing, but I will attend what I can of the planned four day substantive hearing.

easyJambo Also Commented

Enough is enough
As a follow-on to my previous post, Neil Lennon subsequently questioned Hearts commitment against Rangers at a press conference in the run up to Celtic’s visit to Tynecastle a few days later.

As we all know Neil Lennon was assaulted by John Wilson that night.  The atmosphere at that game was as poisonous as any I can remember at Tynecastle, right from the start. From a Hearts perspective those comments had provoked an angry reaction in many Hearts fans, although the trigger for the assault was much more related to events on the pitch, including a soft red card for David Obua and Celtic winning the game comfortably.    

Enough is enough
Billy Boyce November 21, 2017 at 17:23
As far as I can see they must be talking about the end of season 2010/11 with three games remaining, namely Hearts, which RFC won 4-0, Dundee United 2-0 and Kilmarnock, 5-1. In the Killie game RFC went ahead with three early goals and won the League by a solidary point – a close shave, but it opened the CL door for RFC.
If it was Romanov that CW was talking about, then there could be something in the decision not to play Zaliukas against RFC.

Edit: ……. or he has taken the decision by VR out of context.

Hearts fans do believe that there were several occurrences of “Vlad Flu” during his tenure.

Enough is enough
I was disappointed to read Joe McHugh’s article on Videocelts yesterday about Hearts “mystery” benefactor, as if, in some way, there was something untoward about it.

It is difficult to fathom the motive behind who would make such a donation unless of course they have something to hide and want to remain out of the spotlight.

The existence “mystery” benefactors has been in the public domain since it was announced before work started on the new stand in October 2016.  At that that time Ann stated “The benefactors is basically philanthropic givings, which is very generous” The fact that it has now appeared in black and white in the Profit and Loss account hardly means that it remains out the spotlight, unless the motive is to hide it in plain sight.

I should also correct Joe’s error of stating that the donation was part of Hearts turnover.  Donations are not part of a club’s turnover.

Joe goes on to state “it’s realistic to expect that some sort of security has been provided to the ‘generous benefactor’.  Sorry Joe, this is a donation, not a soft loan.
Ann Budge has used her network of wealthy business associates to benefit Hearts previously, with the 3 year shirt deal involving “Save the Children” being similarly funded. That was announced in April 2015 with the following statement by Ann Budge. “The partnership is being funded through philanthropy in a seven-figure three-year deal that supports both the club and the charity”.    

That investment didn’t prompt Joe or anyone else to raise an eyebrow then, so why is it an issue now? Surely it can’t be a deflection tactic following the recent spotlight on Celtic’s largest shareholder. 

The identity of Hearts “mystery” benefactors has been discussed at length on Hearts message boards for some time with various names mentioned including the Roseberry family, partners in a major legal firm and even Ann  Budge herself. 

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