History, Neighbours and Made Up News


John Clark September 26, 2016 at 22:56 Oh, for some ‘Telegraph’ …

Comment on History, Neighbours and Made Up News by easyJambo.

John Clark September 26, 2016 at 22:56 Oh, for some ‘Telegraph’ reporters to get a job on a Scottish paper to have a wee look not just at a manager but a Football Association!
Irony of irony from KJ.  Perhaps he should do something to expose the incompetence of the Scottish FA

keith jackson ‏@tedermeatballs
Incredible appointment in the first place. But, for Scotland’s sake, i hope he survives. The English FA almost make our lot look competent.

easyJambo Also Commented

History, Neighbours and Made Up News
The BBC has provided a little more detail on what was discussed in Court today, including the name of Alex Prentice as Advocate Depute, whom I had speculated with JC as the individual.

James Doleman has also tweeted that the BBC had mentioned CF. That appears to have disappeared from the article below, if it was there originally.

James Doleman ‏@jamesdoleman · 33m33 minutes ago
Donald Findlay QC at Craig Whyte hearing today (via BBC)
“The other issue which is hovering in the background is the Charlotte fakes issue”

Former Rangers owner Craig Whyte could be set to stand trial next year over an alleged fraudulent takeover of the Ibrox club.
The 45-year-old faces two charges – one of fraud and a second allegation under the Companies Act.
The High Court in Glasgow heard a trial had been provisionally set for April 2017, with a two-day hearing taking place in December.
Mr Whyte entered no plea and his bail was continued.
The first accusation claims Mr Whyte obtained a “majority and controlling stake” in Rangers “by fraud”.
 The charge dates are between May 2010 and May 2011, listing various locations including Ibrox Stadium, Murray Park as well as “addresses meantime unknown” in Monaco and France.
It is alleged Whyte and his representatives pretended to then Rangers owner Sir David Murray and others that “funds were available” to make all stipulated payments.
The second charge under the Companies Act centres on an £18m payment in connection with the takeover.
Mr Whyte was once again represented by Donald Findlay QC. Alex Prentice QC is now heading the prosecution team in the case.
Mr Prentice told the hearing: “The Lord Advocate asked that I step in… That is what I will do.”

History, Neighbours and Made Up News
An odd point I picked up on my way home from Court today. I was listening to Talk Sport where Jim White was hosting the draw for the latest qualifying round of the FA Cup.  As it proceeded the following tie was drawn out.  
FC United of Manchester or Harrogate Town v FC Halifax Town

Jim White added “FC Halifax Town was formed in 2008 after “Halifax Town” went into administration then Liquidation”

He didn’t clarify further if he considered it to be the same “Halifax Town” or not. 07

For the record, FC Halifax Town started their life in Northern Premier League Division 1 North, three divisions below that of “AFC Halifax Town” when they went into liquidation.

History, Neighbours and Made Up News
I should have added that we are now onto a third Advocate-Depute (prosecutor) although I believe that Messrs Keegan and McVickar remain in the background.  I didn’t catch his name at any point, unfortunately.

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