Everything Has Changed


EasyJambo says: Saturday, March 9, 2013 at 09:54 The lock-in for the …

Comment on Everything Has Changed by ecobhoy.

easyJambo says:
Saturday, March 9, 2013 at 09:54

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.

You are probably totally correct in what you say but in an LNS ‘moment’ I have never fully accepted that the wording actually means what it appears to mean 🙂 I am also not sure whether the wording in the Prospectus applies to all institutional investors or only some. It appears to be all but I see possible wiggle room in interpretation.

And I don’t know if there is one set ‘Orderly Market Agreement’ or whether these are individually tailored but it’s obvious that if one of the larger institutional investors threw in the towel and decided to get out and this became public knowledge beyond any ‘magic circle’ then share prices would be likely to slump fairly dramatically to possibly 40-50p.

But the Institutional Investors would have paid much more than that projected price so there is a strong self-preservation instinct at work between them not to sell and end-up with a loss unless they form very negative views about the medium to longer term prospects as they could all end-up taking a bath. Cenkos of course would also be exerting strong pressure to stop any major selling and they will have all sorts of other financial ties which provide levers – none of which are illegal I should point out.

So I just have a feeling that the 800,000 didn’t come from the Institutional Investors and my hunch is still one of the original 1p investors. If so it doesn’t necessarily indicate that they view Rangers International as a poor investment bet but just that they have achieved their personal investment strategy and are taking a handsome profit at a time which suits them.

ecobhoy Also Commented

Everything Has Changed
scapaflow14 says:
Saturday, March 9, 2013 at 00:59

We are in a holding pattern at the moment. It is clear that Group took in sufficient funds to keep Rangers in business for the time being. Every time someone as said what about the share price, I’ve had a look, the price is stable, the volume of shares being traded is in relation to the number of shares, is miniscule., so really it gives us no meaningful information at all.

I don’t agree with your analysis of the share price although I am happy to concede that it is early days and trading had been generally light. However there are simply understood reasons for the light volume of shares being traded in relation to overall numbers. 1) Football fans don’t tend to trade their club shares for obvious reasons. 2) The institutional investors are locked-in and can’t trade for 6 months. 3) Directors and key employees are locked-in and can’t trade for 12 months. 4) I think it highly likely that the original investors who were given 1p shares are also locked-in although time periods might vary depending on how much ‘muscle’ they had when negotiating with Green.

What is also obvious is that the overwhelming volume of share trades have been sales and not purchases although in the main there aren’t big individual share numbers involved.

The Rangers International shares traded on Flotation Day back in December 20 at 76p and rose fairly quickly to their peak of 94p on January 7. Since then they have slid downwards to a plateau over the last week at around 78p. Interestingly the 6 month result didn’t firm the price. In the short term you always have to be aware that ramping and de-ramping activities might be underway but I have ignored this for the moment.

But then we had a major development on 6 March I believe, announced yesterday, when two lots of 400,000 shares each were sold within a few minutes of each other. The really interesting question is who was the seller/sellers. Is it one seller or were the 800,000 shares put together from a number of sellers who are not subject to lock-in.

In the short history of Rangers International share trading 2 virtual simultaneous trades of almost one million shares is very significant. The problem is we don’t know what the significance actually means because we don’t know who sold the shares. But, unless this is a one-off, something could well be stirring.

As to a ‘holding pattern’ I would say that a ‘burn-rate’ of £1 million per month is more like a glide to a crash landing myself. And the comment that Rangers International ‘raised enough funds to keep Rangers in business for the time being’ is I would think hopeful.

It also totally ignores the game plan outlined in the AIM Prospectus about the various capital improvements that were mooted in and around Ibrox. Increased playing expenditure was mentioned in the Prospectus with no actual figures but more recently we have had Green state Ally on a bad day would have a £10 million warchest and on a good day would have double that.

And with the amount of players now being linked to Rangers I wonder if even £20 million will be enough 🙂 I see plenty of people going on about the wages cap of 30/33% but my memory is that the institutional investors were told the First Team cap was going to be 26%. Even to a non-accountant this doesn’t appear to add up.

I really wonder how long a piece of string the ‘time being’ actually is and how will institutional and other investors feel if the £22.2 million raised by the flotation is swallowed-up in operating expenses. Would they support another trip to market for a further flotation which would then dilute the value of their existing shares?

Who knows and until we get straight-talking answers and actual fully audited accounts I doubt if more than two people actually know the whole truth. In the meantime it will continue to fill websites with conjecture and I note that even some Rangers fans on their own sites are beginning to waken up to some of the anomalies which are emerging,

Everything Has Changed
deldons says:
Friday, March 8, 2013 at 14:52

I would keep in eye out for more public statements on this issue linked with ‘it’s our duty to the shareholders to ensure their best return’ rationale in relation to footballing matters as the season draws closer to a conclusion. I rather suspect that when money for transfers stories come closer to becoming reality (all be it they can’t physically buy until January 2014 only take out of contact players from Sept 1) the more we’ll see a cooling off from Green regarding finances; the pot ain’t that full as expected, etc.

I agree with your comments about Green in that no matter how off the wall his utterances seem there is always a connection – sometimes tenuous – with reality.

I have no doubt that the institutional shareholders are thinking back to the sales patter at the pre-IPO meetings and in the cold light of day after the losses posted for the first 6 months are starting to view their ‘investment’ a little more coldly and perhaps their own clients are also seeking assurances.

I think there will need to be radical cost-cutting in players wages and also in the numbers of non-playing staff as some kind of sop to investors who must be wondering about the cash burn-rate and whether any of the £21million in the piggy bank will be available for anything other than feeding operating expenses.

But now that he is basically telling a lot of the current squad that they ain’t fit for purpose in spite of Ally buying them last summer and agreed by Green then he needs new players especially if he wants to increase seat prices. Any English institutional investors will now have had the chance to look at the attendance figures and wonder where the money is.

But they were probably thinking of English season ticket prices and not the £200 average charged at Ibrox – so I think they will be putting a lot of pressure on to raise prices and revenue as well as cutting costs. The alternative is another trip to the AIM Market for more dosh and that would dilute the investors shareholding so they won’t want that.

But back to the players he needs – what kind of deal does he need to offer someone who is going to be out of contract in the summer to ignore offers from elsewhere on the promise that Rangers will take them on in September?

If it was me – and even if it was a totally reputable club – I would want cash up-front with a heavily legalled contract that the club couldn’t walk away from except with heavy penalties.

So will there be any kind of money at rangers to do this? And from memory how easy will it be to shed some of their duds as from memory I seem to remember that they were taken on with lengthy contracts as an inducement to play in SFL3.

As usual things remain very fluid and interesting down Ibrox Way or should that be Sports Direct Avenue 🙂

Everything Has Changed
gerrylentils says:
Friday, March 8, 2013 at 09:32

when can we expect a statement from celtic on refusing to accept the conclusions of the nimmo report and appealing the decision. when can we expect a statement from celtic demanding an inquiry into the clear pro-rangers bias at the sfa.


If you mean a public statement I would say never and hope that that was indeed the case.

I have no doubt that Celtic will use whatever channels at their disposal with the SPL & SFA to make their position known as a club which is a member of both organisations.

Personally I think the main thrust for Celtic must be to keep running its successful business model to help provide the cash to guarantee on-field success. We will get a crack at Europe next year but there are severe hurdles to be faced in the qualifying rounds – this is of more interest and worry to me than things that are outwith the actual control of the club concerning Rangers.

To date I think the Celtic response overall has been measured towards the Rangers situation and long may it continue because we all know in the West of Scotland just how easy it is for sectarian violence to erupt when the football fuse is lit.

Sporting Integrity is important and something which always must be pursued but we have to live with the imperfections that are the reality of Scottish Football and the biggest problem is the combination of shocking ineptness and corruption at the core of the SFA.

And this cannot be tackled by Celtic alone but needs to be tackled by the vast majority of Scottish fans and clubs. Is it possible to mobilise this movement? That’s a difficult one but it is possible. One thing I am clear about is that the target has got to be the SFA and not Rangers even though there may be a linkage because of some of the issues but the heart of the problem lies within the SFA.

Sadly IMO too many people are intent on nothing less than the total destruction of Rangers and they aren’t exclusively Celtic fans. I believe this obsession, which many cloak as Sporting Integrity, is actually a barrier to dealing with the main problem.

There were dark mutterings when the SFL said they wouldn’t be stripping Rangers of titles but the more I read the LNS Decision the more I believe it just couldn’t have been done within the existing rules especially with the seemingly childish legal preparations made for the Hearing by the SPL whose responsibility it was to provide the evidence for the SPL/SFA case to LNS.

It also must be remembered that the SPL refused to demand specific sanctions against Rangers should they be found ‘guilty’ but left this to LNS – what an act of cowardice by the SPL who also failed to show what ‘sporting advantage’ Rangers had gained from the EBTs and/or the flawed registration process.

I am not a lawyer but I fail to see that any appeal against the LNS findings would be successful. What is required is a total rewriting of the rule books to remove the glaring inadequacies revealed by the LNS Hearing and also to ensure that the rule books of different football organisations are at one with each other and nor contradictory as is the case currently.

I am not suggesting we just move along and accept and forget what has happened. That is the last thing we need to do but there is no point IMO in fighting battles which have been lost – we have to look to positive ways to attack the root causes of the corruption that exists and I’m afraid that blaming shadowy establishment figures and funny handshakes no longer cuts it for me as it is just an excuse for some people to give up and walk away.

As I’ve said before I will not be walking anywhere but will continue to support Celtic and at some stage I have no doubt that our first team will not be playing in Scotland and hopefully the league set-up we end up in will be cleaner than what we leave behind.

I also believe deep down that perhaps the absence of Rangers and Celtic will give Scottish Football the ability to cleanse itself of all the SPL and SFA parasites and build a leaner more transparent and honest league system with competitive football among teams more equal in playing and commercial strengths.

Recent Comments by ecobhoy

Did Stewart Regan Ken Then Wit We Ken Noo?
jimmci says:
April 24, 2015 at 1:50 pm

And why did we not get the panel’s reasoning together with the decision last night?

Simples ❗ The Decision was the easy bit 😆 The explanation to sell it was the hard bit and despite a nightshift they appear to have fluffed their lines AGAIN 🙄

Did Stewart Regan Ken Then Wit We Ken Noo?
Allyjambo says:
April 24, 2015 at 2:18 pm

Might I suggest that SD’s main interest in this meeting was to put the RIFC board straight on some matters regarding the security over the IP and just how watertight it is, rather than to discuss funding or any ‘amicable’ discussion how best to move the club forward!
You might be right but would SD want the club suffering another Insolvency Event? Perhaps they were asking for the second loan tranche of £5 million which the new board apparently rejected on taking control.

I have undernoted a reply I made to parttimearab last night which may have been missed but may also be relevant.

3. Insolvency events

(i) The inability of the Company to pay its debts as they fall due within the meaning of section 123 of the Insolvency Act 1986 (the “Act”);
(ii) The issue of an application for an administration order or a notice of intention to appoint an administrator in relation to the Company;
(iii) The passing of a resolution or order for the Company’s winding-up, dissolution, administration or reorganisation;
(iv) The declaration of a moratorium in relation to any of the Company’s indebtedness;
(v) The making of any arrangement or any proposal for any arrangement with any of the Company’s creditors; and
(vi) The appointment of a liquidator, receiver, administrator, supervisor or other similar officer in respect of any of the Company’s assets.

Now I haven’t a clue whether that has anything to do with the SPFL Rule Change. But it’s clear that there could be various stages in an Insolvency Event and perhaps the rule change is to cover all eventualities which might not have been previously defined in the Rule Book.

In particular I look at:

(vi) The appointment of a liquidator, receiver, administrator, supervisor or other similar officer in respect of any of the Company’s assets.

And I think of the various charges which have been placed on Rangers assets wrt the £5 million loan. I have previously posted that the contracts wrt a Default Event could see the assets pass to SportsDirect without any court hearing and SD also already has the power to appoint a Receiver to deal with any of the assets that pass to it via a loan default event.

Now that might not ultimately lead to a full-blown Insolvency depending on what SD actually decide to do with Rangers. But looking at the above I wonder whether with the SPFL rule change that just taking control of the assets is enough to be classed as an Insolvency Event under SPFL Rules?

Perhaps the SPFL are thinking ahead ?

But does the rule take effect immediately or from the new season?

It seems that if it is immediate and Rangers suffers an Insolvency Event then that would be an automatic 25 points this season and 15 next season. Assuming it is able to survive death a second time.

Did Stewart Regan Ken Then Wit We Ken Noo?
Resin_lab_dog says:
April 24, 2015 at 12:10 pm
ecobhoy says:
April 24, 2015 at 12:00 pm
blu says:
April 24, 2015 at 11:40 am

From what I saw, all criticisms emanating from ICTFC was directed towards the SFA machinery and not towards CFC. Similarly, I have seen no evidence of any criticism of ICTFC being put forward by CFC. I see that fact as quite telling.

Celtic were quite entitled to make all the statements they made and had the boot been on the other foot, in the circumstances I am sure KC at ICTFC would have done likewise.

Similarly, had the situtaions been reversed w.r.t. the foul, I would have expected CFC to back their player robsutly in the same way that ICTFC did.

This is about governance of the sport, not internecine disagreements between member clubs – for which I am yet to see any cause advanced from either party.
Couldn’t agree more!

Did Stewart Regan Ken Then Wit We Ken Noo?
blu says:
April 24, 2015 at 11:40 am

My view is that Celtic played this one wrong (only in the public nature of it)and it was easy for media outlets to infer cause and effect in the Celtic/Compliance Officer actions.
There is some merit in your view IMO. However there’s a balancing act to be achieved which requires an answer to what the officials saw, didn’t see, or decided or didn’t decide on Sunday.

All I heard in the ground, leaving the ground, on the train, in the pub, was real anger and disbelief at the decision which worsened with the TV replays.

I do think Celtic fans were due an explanation and tbf to Celtic I doubt if they could have forseen what an absolute hash the SFA would make of it. Obviously the SMSM has ridden to the rescue of the SFA so what’s new about that?

But we’re still awaiting the answers requested. Will we get them? Not without keeping the pressure on the SFA on all fronts where Hampden’s dark secrets exist.

Did Stewart Regan Ken Then Wit We Ken Noo?
Gabby says:
April 24, 2015 at 10:18 am

If Celtic really, really felt they needed to send a letter, then this is the type of thing they should have sent…
I disagree as the letter you suggest goes way beyond the immediate point which is simply: ‘Please explain how the decision was arrived at’. I say decision because when Celic sent the letter it seemed there had been no decision reached but that the incident had been ‘missed’ by all officials.

Once the SFA provide that info then Celtic can make a decision as to if and how it should proceed with the matter.

My credo in a situation like this is not to give any leeway to a slippery character or room for manoeuvre. Ask the straight simple question and take it from there once the basic position is established.

Never jump fences too soon and never ever jump fences you don’t need to especially if you don’t know what lies in wait on the other side.

About the author