Everything Has Changed

By

Ecobhoy says: Saturday, March 9, 2013 at 09:19 ====================== The lock-in only …

Comment on Everything Has Changed by easyJambo.

ecobhoy says: Saturday, March 9, 2013 at 09:19
======================
The lock-in only really applies to the directors and key employees and covers 9.25M shares. (Green 5M, Amhad 2.2M, Hart 0.5M and McCoist 1M make up the bulk of those)

The lock-in for the institutional investors (16.4M shares) isn’t watertight. Their commitment for six months is only that an “orderly market” is maintained.

Cenkos have entered into orderly market agreements dated 7 December 2012 with certain of the Shareholders holding upon Admission, 16,375,000 Ordinary Shares (representing 22.60 per cent. of the Enlarged Share Capital), which provide that a shareholder shall for a period of 6 months following Admission only dispose of an interest in Ordinary Shares following consultation with the Company’s broker and in such manner as the broker may reasonably require with a view to maintaining an orderly market in the Ordinary Shares.

My reading of the above extract from the Prospectus is that the institutional investors can dispose of their shares at any point with the agreement of Cenkos.

easyJambo Also Commented

Everything Has Changed
spanishcelt says: Saturday, March 9, 2013 at 10:25

They were probably initiated on 6th March but were only completed and went through on 8th March

http://www.lse.co.uk/ShareTrades.asp?shareprice=RFC&share=rangers_int

6-Mar-13 16:15:47 78.00 400,000 Sell* 78.00 82.00 312.00k O
6-Mar-13 16:17:28 79.00 400,000 Sell* 78.00 82.00 316.00k O


Everything Has Changed
angus1983 says: Friday, March 8, 2013 at 20:14

David Longmuir hasn’t ruled out fast-tracking Rangers if there is a league reconstruction
By DEREK JOHNSTONE

I WAS interested to read that SFL chief executive David Longmuir had refused to rule out Rangers being fast-tracked into the second tier if league reconstruction gets the go-ahead.

There is certainly a precedent; Stranraer were promoted to the First Division when the league set-up was changed back in 1994.
================================
The Stranraer precedent wasn’t as substantial as the leg-up that is being suggested for TRFC.

In 1993/94 there was a 3 league set up of 12-12-14. By winning Div 2 (the third tier), Stranraer could be considered to have merited 23rd place in the rankings for the next season as two teams would normally have been promoted/relegated.

In the following season 1994/95 the league structure changed to 10-10-10-10. Stranraer were given a place in the top 20 as their reward for winning their league, thus gained another 3 places in the meritocracy. ICT and Ross Co. joined the league to make the no of teams up to 40.

What is being suggested for Rangers, assuming they win Div 3 is that they are given a leg up from 31st/32nd (1 or 2 can be promoted), to 24th in the rankings, a lift of 7 or 8 places.

I don’t know when the decision was taken that the Div 2 winners would go into the new 10 team Div 1 but I suspect that it will have been agreed before the start of 1993/94 season.


Everything Has Changed
It’s a sad indictment of the SPL clubs, that they have previously been powerless to act while Celtic and Rangers had their veto on changes through the 11-1 vote.

Now they appear to have acted in a very limited way now that Rangers have left the scene of their crimes, but for one season only? That is a joke. They have left a seat warm for TRFC to take on the mantle and the financial clout of their deceased ancestor.


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