LNS – A Summary


Murray stating 5m is in the bank pending legals.  So, …

Comment on LNS – A Summary by Smugas.

Murray stating 5m is in the bank pending legals.  So, obviously (one would have thought), what legals?

1/  Return of 25% RR shares.  SD/MA retain majority voting rights over matters financial. 
2/  Return of securities over MP and car park
3/  Confess I don’t quite understand the IP thing – they have a security over the IP which would be handed back, but separately, they have a 7 year and counting exclusivity agreement to use it regardless of the owner or any security holder.  I think!

Ok so far.  But I wonder do Paul’s legals also include

4/  Agreement to drop all outstanding court cases between SD and, including, crucially, the SFA.

I suspect, assuming they have the money which it goes without saying INcludes the 2.5m they needed for operations i.e. they will be desperate for the CIC money next month to meet them again you would think.  This is where the repayment problem lies.  Mike will not accept that 4th condition unless its on his terms.     

Smugas Also Commented

LNS – A Summary

wottpi 17th December 2015 at 10:30 am # Smugas 17th December 2015 at 9:47 am

Given the nature of the new SPFL with a decent strategy there is no reason why the powers that be can’t negotiate a decent deal regardless of what teams are in what division.

You forget what some might interpret as a shere unwillingness to do so and to use said expected lack of result to support a return to the ‘Aye Been.’

Tayred.  Agree 100% re Milne.  I’m reminded of Alan Sugar telling the story when he was underwriting Spurs of Spurs fans screaming at him **** sake Sugar, that’s another £20 m you’ve wasted on utter crap!  I’m glad the Donalds (new version!) have now shouldered some of the burden.

LNS – A Summary
Apologies – having problems with the phone and paragraph spacing!  Must try harder.

LNS – A Summary

I agree to a point.  The SPL (as was) sans Hibs Hearts and RFC was a harder sell to broadcasters, particularly those with advertising space to sell.  I don’t need to be Neil Doncaster or even Stewart Milne to see that.  But you have to start from the premise that they dropped out on merit and will have to re-ascend (in two cases at least 13 ) on the same basis.  Adopt that principle from the off and I personally don’t believe you lose a single fan more than you would have done in the first place.  However the game is losing fans hands over fist as it is as the xbox age replaces the pies and Bovril flat cappers (ok I’ve taken the stereotype too far but you get the point).  “The major clubs” being in the top league helps the attendances of the major clubs.  No argument.  Do they help the overall level of fan interest? 
Well, within that there is also a bit of a shift as some make hay given the absence of others; AFC, Caley Thistle and StJ being three that spring immediately to mind in terms of new found silverware.  Ask AFC how easy it is to sell under 18 season tickets now, to 10 years ago.  A smaller scale admittedly but I suspect Inverness and St J would say the same.  Is it good for the game that the small clubs with four figure attendances do this to the exclusion of the five figure crowd ones?  No.  Not from a broadcasting point of view.  Is it fair?  As long as the symptoms of the major clubs malaise were self inflicted which to varying degrees they were, then yes, absolutely. And that should remain the over-riding principle on which the game is built.  Unless I see a tv contract that tells me that without the “major club” bias it doesn’t exist, it is not sustainable, it simply disappears up its own.  But of course we don’t see it (the contract), we are expected to take the word of the authorities for that. 
And that is where the problem remains.   

Recent Comments by Smugas

It Is Better To Offer No Excuse Than A Bad One
In fairness to the pundits.   To a man Tonight (considering the chopped off derby goal) they could not understand why the tele evidence instantly available to anyone with a phone couldn’t be used in that scenario.  

It Is Better To Offer No Excuse Than A Bad One
In simplistic terms, as far as the recipients were concerned, the monies were paid in net.  I.e. as far as they were concerned all tax payable had been deducted and paid. Billy Dodds said as much on the radio as I recall.  What SDM said in one of the hearings was that they took the monies that would otherwise have been deducted and forwarded for tax added it to the payment to the player.  Hence a player who would have received £60 wages and in addition had deducted £40 in cash to give a £100 total from any other club would have received the whole £100 from oldco.  This gave rise to the famous quote about “buying players they couldn’t otherwise afford.”

so the answer to your question is…both!

The reason for the confusion of course is because the players had side letters explaining all this but sssshhhhh, they’re secret.

It Is Better To Offer No Excuse Than A Bad One
So, square the circle.

1/  King told to make offer.  No guarantee of level of take up especially given that…
2/  Future security of club predicated on King Loan.
3/  King saying he can’t afford to make offer so would presumably have to resign.
4/  Potential that him resigning causes share loss (ignoring imminent dilution).  One would think that might tempt a few more to his offer. 
4/  Also small matter that regardless of whether he resigns or not, whether he offers and whether they take up his offer, the future security of the club is still predicated on his loan.
5/  If he’s not a director can he trust the board with his extended loan, especially given that…
6/  In case you haven’t spotted it this is a loss making business.  Extending that loan doesn’t staunch the flow it simply pours more in the top to be leaked.  Staunching the flow requires more profitable surroundings (a new CL bucket).  But that needs investment and then…..

Ok you get the rest!

It Is Better To Offer No Excuse Than A Bad One
FWIW I still don’t see any advantage to them in ‘eventing.’  Threatening to ‘event.’  Yes for sure. That’ll get all the Christmas coppers rattling in the buckets  since whilst they may look down their nose at a credible challenge for 2nd it would still be a great result for them and give them European access.  Interestingly of course so does 3rd (4th?).  As clubs like Aberdeen know its actually bloody expensive in relative terms being the plucky loser.  But I fear crowd indifference would kick in.  Aberdeen losing 2000 fans by accepting 3rd is no biggie.  Rangers losing 20,000 is a different barrel of kippers.  

The no-event assumption has two core requirements of course.

1/  All parties keep speaking to each other, ignore individual rationality and act instead for the greater good of the club (don’t start) particularly in view of….
2/  Somebody, somewhere has to pony up to keep the loss making bus on the road else it grinds to a halt in the race to the top.  Shouting and screaming and stamping their foot that its all so unfair unless all the other buses are told to stop too is unlikely to get a sympathetic hearing.  Well, not from the fans anyway…. 

It Is Better To Offer No Excuse Than A Bad One
Homunculus @ 12.38

My thoughts exactly.  The AGM stuff to me made sense to a/ get a hold of 1872’s ‘new’ money with zero repayment clause and b/ to tidy up the balance sheet with a view to a euro licence (listed you will recall as essential to the clumpany’s future well being) which will surely be scrutinised like never before.  It makes no sense for the creditors to do it (unless a billionaire has flown in off the radar offering more per share for their quantum than a simple loan repayment would yield i.e. parity*) and it makes even less sense to allow a situation where the creditors can individually decide whether to do so given the fragility of the underlying company(ies).  Particularly given the reputation of some of the principle creditors.  

* parity insofar as they’d get their money back.  It is not enough to promise growth on their shares in some future dream complete with CL soundtrack if achieving said dream is literally costing you money in the meantime in terms of shareholder calls. RBS being the most recent example to spring to mind.  

About the author