The outbreak of internecine warfare at RIFC is being acted out through a real pea-soup fog right now. The war is being fought on so many fronts that it is difficult to see just exactly how many armies are involved, and how the alliances are shaping up.
Craig Mather would appear to be in the Charles Green camp, but it is difficult to imagine that he would be happy to hear old blunderbuss-mouth peppering Ally McCoist with shot. McCoist’s in-character but inelegant riposte, whilst a valiant attempt at deflection and self-preservation, put his mentor and chairman, Walter Smith in a rather awkward position. It gives Mather a double headache as he tries to head off Clyde Blowers boss Jim McColl – and his blowhard ally Paul Murray – at the EGM-pass.
If Mather stands by Green, and Smith does the same for McCoist, then the two main officers of the company will be in opposite, and hostile, camps.
As I say, making sense of it is difficult, but one thing is as clear as an empty window frame: the acrimony, which has been in existence for months, is only now being aired in public because the season ticket drive is over. The one policy that the warring factions have been in agreement with is “Not in Front of the Children”.
Now that the fans have been compelled to buy season tickets in substantial numbers through a mixture of fear, loyalty and a never-ending stream of press spin telling them that “Rangers are on the cusp of greatness if only the supporters cough up”, it seems acceptable that the real war can begin – but what is the prize?
There can be little doubt that all of the factions are aware that a conservative business model is necessary if Rangers are to establish themselves in Scottish football – certainly a more conservative one than that followed by RFC (IL). I infer therefore that the war is not over a Murray vs McCann approach. My best guess is that the war is one of ideals – between one faction which aims to make as much money in the short term as possible, and another which, whilst not averse to a bit of nest-feathering, sees the health of the club and the notion of a continuity Rangers as paramount.
The trouble for Rangers fans is that it is the former faction which holds all the cards – all the shares in fact. I think that all fans of the game of football would hope that people with football at heart would win out here, irrespective of what their partisan loyalties dictate on a day to day basis.
The problem for either warring faction is that the loyalty of the Rangers fans is finite. The “long road (back)” to the top is one which might engage them for while. It is a great journey which is not without its rewards and adventure, but expectations will be massive if and when they get to the top league. When the acceleration of progress meets the buffers of premier championship aspiration, gate money will be in the front passenger seat. Managing unrealistic expectations is extremely difficult, and evidenced by the use of McCoist’s recruitment sledgehammer to crack the nut of the bottom two divisions.
But here are some questions to which I honestly do not know the answer;
- How does the Rangersness faction wrest control away from these spivs?
- How will the spivs attempt to ensure that the Rangersness faction fails in their objective?
- Can the people in the Rangersness camp REALLY be trusted to act in the best interests of the club even if it is at odds with their own? This, given the close association with the terminal decline of the club they all profess to love.
- Is there any realistic scenario which allows this club to prosper and challenge for honours within a ten to fifteen year period?
My belief is that the key to the new club being able to establish itself is managing the expectations of the fans. Despite the MSM willingness to cut and paste RFC and RIFC press releases unadulterated, the ability of that same MSM to impress a message of realism into Rangers fans is zero. Not in front of the children in fact.
Is it really a sociological bridge too far to expect Rangers fans to turn down the expectation-ometer? I don’t believe it is. In the eighties, if I recall correctly, a seriously underachieving Rangers team were not met with demands for big spending. There was pressure on them to get better managers who could pick better players, but no demands for Fort Knox to be breached. If Rangers fans really want a club called Rangers playing in blue at Ibrox, and competing fully in the game, they need to find leaders who can sell the long-termism of such an aspiration. Many will hope, including the spivs and the MSM, that no such leader emerges.
wottpi says:
August 12, 2013 at 2:38 pm
Drew Peacock says:
August 12, 2013 at 1:48 pm
Hear what you say and tend to agree being that the prospectus appears to show generous terms on loan repayments for those and such as those. Those who put money in want their cut. However we will not know until way down the line.
The other day Alastair Johnstone gave an interview claiming that Walter was astonished and the goings on in relation to ‘compensation’ to add to our suspicions.
While Walter may not have been a genuis in the world of corporate finance I think he may well have read the situation correctly and, as per my earlier post re the possibility of T’Rangers trading while insolvent in the near future, he faked an injury and headed for the changing room thus staying well out of the firing line when the rest of the team take a 6-0 drubbiing. My guess is Malclom Murray was in the bath wating for him having whispered to Walter to get of the field of play as soon as he could.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
He’s in the firing line though for keeping quiet during the season ticket renewal process as none of what Walter told Johnstone to reveal was news – he helped in the the latest duping of the fans.
I’m sure that when the shares were put on offer to the non-institutional investor (the fans) there was much made of the fact that £17m of shares had already been SOLD to the institutions. If it turns out that much of that ‘sale’ was on some sort of ‘sale or return’ basis, or more properly options, is there the possibility that some LSE rules will have been broken, with charges to follow, as it would appear to be a deliberate ploy to mislead potential investors?
So the IPO £22 million is gone…cenkos have gone….Malcolm Murray has gone…Walter has gone…Ally would have gone…but the door frame needs removed…
However Charlie big hauns has returned….cue the Benny Hill music and hit the fast play button…
I have never seen any evidence that the IPO was dependent on promissory payments and don’t even understand how that would be allowed by the AIM Market.
The AIM Admission and first day of trading document submitted to AIM clearly states that: ‘Rangers has raised approximately £22.2 million, prior to expenses, through an institutional investor placing of 24,242,857 new ordinary shares at the placing price of 70p per new ordinary share (the “Placing”) and a public offer for subscription (the “Offer”), pursuant to which 7,437,999 new ordinary shares were subscribed for at the placing price of 70p per share.’
That amounts to £22.177 million raised from 31,680,856 shares issued.
I think where some people get confused is that prior to Flotation there were 33,415,200 shares issued in TRFCL to the original consortium followed by a few other investors. Come flotation these shares were swapped on a 1-for-1 basis with those of RIFC Plc. These means that the total amount of shares issued for RIFC Plc is 65,096,056.
The original people who invested in TRFCL – before the AIM Flotation – paid various prices for their shares ranging from 1p to £1 a share. It would appear that some of the original investors had a deal whereby their investment was repaid in cash in a debenture arrangement possibly secured on property whereas others were issued with TRFCL shares which on flotation were converted to RIFC Plc shares as explained above.
That period however is very vague and I tend to think people have confused the pre and post flotation periods and that £22.177 million was raised through the AIM Flotation less exes of course which seem to usually be put at £2 to £2.5 million.
Allyjambo says:
August 12, 2013 at 2:52 pm
I’m sure that when the shares were put on offer to the non-institutional investor (the fans) there was much made of the fact that £17m of shares had already been SOLD to the institutions. If it turns out that much of that ‘sale’ was on some sort of ‘sale or return’ basis, or more properly options, is there the possibility that some LSE rules will have been broken, with charges to follow, as it would appear to be a deliberate ploy to mislead potential investors?
===============================================================
It’s normal practice to have a share ‘placement’ to institutional investors before the ‘offer’ is opened to the public. In the Rangers case the offer price to fans was the same as the institutional Investors and the initial trading price on flotation was actually 76p a share which the ‘public’ bought at.
I think this is a blind alley brought about by wishful thinking I’m afraid – I could be wrong but I haven’t seen a shred of evidence to suggest I am.
http://www.londonstockexchange.com/exchange/prices-and-markets/stocks/summary/company-summary.html?fourWayKey=GB00B90T9Z75GBGBXASQ1
2 milion shares change hands
whos buying 😯
Andy?
How do you know they are buying and not selling?
Serious question BTW. 😳
ecobhoy says:
August 12, 2013 at 3:22 pm
Thanks for backing up my thoughts that it could all just be wishful thinking.
However, sitting on the fence, Phil Mac has said for a while he questions whether or not £22m in cash was raised.
I’d be surprised if he would put that out in the public domain without having something to back it up even if it was just a theory.
Bawsman says:
August 12, 2013 at 3:31 pm
1 0 i
Rate This
———————————————————————————————————–
for there to be a buyer there has to be a seller.
who’s selling is just as interesting a question actually………..
essexbeancounter says:
August 12, 2013 at 12:21 pm
23 0 Rate This
Reilly1926 says:
August 12, 2013 at 4:16 am
On his controversial bonus — payable if Rangers win the league — he said: “I’ve started discussions with Craig to waive that and to have something that may be discretionary based on financial performance.
“It is contractually what I am entitled to — and there are not many people willing to give up £200,000.
“But as finance director I need to be judged on my results.”
=============================================================================
On his controversial bonus — payable if Rangers win the league — he said: “I’ve started discussions with Craig to waive that and to have something that may be discretionary based on financial performance…
I’m guessing here, but is he meaning
….Craig Whyte (owner of Sevco 5088) ?
Bawsman says:
August 12, 2013 at 3:31 pm
The sites don’t give names.
Only that there is a trade.
At present the 2m isn’t shown as a sell or a buy but obviously there has to be both for the trade!
Names would only need to be reported if it was a director of the company who was involved in the deal.
This would be under the Regulatory News and the Director Deals.
Anyone else and we just have to guess at who may be buying and who is selling.
Either that or someone boasts to the papers.
beanos says:
August 12, 2013 at 3:36 pm
Bawsman says:
August 12, 2013 at 3:31 pm
1 0 i
Rate This
———————————————————————————————————–
for there to be a buyer there has to be a seller.
who’s selling is just as interesting a question actually………..
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Over £3M worth of sales in June, July and August.
The SFA, for once, recently felt the need to issue a clarifying statement in response to TRFC’s claims that they had been ‘treated differently’ as a result of administration, when compared to Hearts & Dunfermline.
With all the chaos and public sniping down Govan way, you would think that the SFA would again feel the need to issue a statement.
Agreed, the SFA probably can’t say too much publicly at this time, but they could at least follow up Stockbridge’s ‘guarantee’ in the press that TRFC is not in financial distress and will not go bust.
Does this fit with the information as submitted to the SFA when applying for their license this season ?
[Auldheid, please correct me if I’m wrong here with the process ?]
To reassure League 1 fans, and Scottish fans in general, [including TRFC fans], the SFA, [or even the SPFL], could issue a statement either fully supporting Stockbridge, or an alternatiive ‘bland’, non-committal statement which refers to the TRFC submissions for this season’s license, [and from which fans could perhaps draw their own conclusions].
If the SFA could comment about administration treatment, then they could / should comment about the ability of a club to fulfill its fixtures for this whole season – especially when the directors / investors of said club are publicly arguing about finances.
[I am discounting the HMFC & Dunfermline scenarios as these have been well documented and everyone must be aware of the uncertainty / risk. TRFC however – via Stockbridge – is trying to claim that all is OK at Ibrox : nothing for the fans to worry about re: the finances.]
http://www.lse.co.uk/SharePrice.asp?shareprice=RFC
Doesn’t say here, if the 2million shares ‘traded’ today were purchases or sales
If it was a sale only to a ‘trader’, tomorrow should be interesting to see what happens to the ‘price’
If the trader doesn’t find a buyer PDQ
Guys, whether it is a BUY or a SELL, 2 Million + shares move is a very big statement.
jimlarkin says:
August 12, 2013 at 3:44 pm
Bawsman says:
August 12, 2013 at 3:47 pm
Indeed.
A while back some people thought that following the share price was not of much interest.
However at certain times it does provide another part of the jigsaw.
Bawsman says:
August 12, 2013 at 3:47 pm
1 0 Rate This
Guys, whether it is a BUY or a SELL, 2 Million + shares move is a very big statement.
————-
Converted to Scottish fivers, enough to run two entire Division 1 Championship-winning teams 😯
” Basically HMRC did all they could to go after Whyte. If he had withtheld the tax that was owing he would have been pulled to order by HMRC toot sweet. 9 month arrears would never have built up. But what he did instead was fail to file his returns. By filing his returns late, HMRC could not bill him, because they did not have the information on which to bill him accurately. ”
——————————————————————————————————————————————–
If you fail to file a return on time HMRC issue a specified charge, a specified charge is HMRC’s calculation of what you owe based on your previous PAYE payment and filing history. HMRC could and should have been billing Rangers for every one of the 9 months they did not file a return, it was fairly obvious hundreds of employees were still being paid wages, no real guesswork required.
wottpi says:
August 12, 2013 at 3:34 pm
Phil MacGiollaBhain has tweeted this afternoon that sources frm inside Ibrox say – the idea that last year’s IPO raised £20m is “laughable”.
Eco/wottpi,
Agreed its usually best to see doc evidence. Maybe something from CF will pop up on the radar?
Carl31 says:
“Agreed its usually best to see doc evidence. Maybe something from CF will pop up on the radar?”
It just did. Someone just sold 2m shares.
Does anyone have a Popcorn delivery service number?
http://alzipratu.wordpress.com/2013/02/05/39/
Well worth a read
Whats happened to Charlotte recently?
Has there been some legal action to shut her up maybe?
😐
” The suspicion is that these are a front for Ticketus. In other words, Ticketus have swapped the money they are owed by Rangers FC for shares in RIFC plc. At some point in the future, Ticketus will sell these shares in order to recoup its losses and/or may even just be holding them as security against repayment from season ticket income.”
———————————————————————————————————————————————
I think there are limits to any speculation, and this tests such limits. Ticketus have stated they intend to pursue CW for their losses, and in any case, RFC creditors have absolutely nothing to do with RIFC plc or TRFC , there is no debt to swap.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-23667664
SFA issue new ‘interpretation’ of what a ‘new potato’ is !!!
P McC’s article on today’s sale of 2million RIFC (owners of Sevco) shares
http://scotslawthoughts.wordpress.com/2013/08/12/someone-has-just-traded-2-02-million-rangers-shares-for-838k/
jimlarkin says:
August 12, 2013 at 4:45 pm
Have I seen this before ? I’m sure I read it quite a while back
Here’s a scary thought…
So, at some point in the near future we expect the demise of TRFC: there will either be a stabilised but severely impoverished TRFC or a ‘New TRFC’ club.
Either way, without a seriously rich sugar daddy the club is knackered in the long-term, and entry to the top league could be put back several years.
Even the most ‘loyal’ TRFC fan would be able to clearly comprehend that their expectations of playing Celtic, and playing in Europe, would be a long, long way off…
So, IMO, there would either have to be another proposed league restructuring – or it is proposed that the club from Govan simply has to be slotted into the top league.
A final, all out assault by the Govan club / SFA / SPFL / the MSM – to convince / bully the Scottish fans that a Govan club must be in the top league ‘for the good of Scottish football’ ?
The alternative could be terminal…not for Scottish football but for the club from Govan… 🙂
Have to listen to SSB tonight ………. It’ll still be a load of rubbish but should be good fun squirm squirm squirm 😆 😆 😆
StevieBC says:
August 12, 2013 at 5:22 pm
I can see the argument along-the-lines of , “we have all these fixed costs to run Ibrox and Murray Park but very little income , therefore we need access to the top table”.
The counter argument is equally clear , you need to go through a proper downsizing in your next administration, to get income somewhere close to expenditure.
The last few decades under Murray seems to have turned the Rangers movers and shakers into a bunch of well morons , they are incapable of running a business , so the SPFL need to keep them out of harms way in the lowest league possible.
Everyone should just simply think the unthinkable (as per the 1st liquidation) , so assume that the money raised in the IPO was nowhere near the amounts claimed; assume that the spivs have got all sorts of side deals going with sub-contractors (including lawyers) salting the money away ; assume that monthly expenses are far higher than reported; assume that they are running debts to suppliers quite happily; assume that are running up debts on VAT< PAYE and NI again.
Unlike first time round , Craigy boy sprung the administration on everyone – however this time round there is a great big ADVERT being placed by Craig M, Charles G, Brian S, Ally et al that the current company and club is FUBAR and that this is a full blown emergency.
The longer the real Rangers men leave it then the more inventive methods of removing cash from the scene will be found.
Gut instinct , tells me the next administration is weeks away , before the clocks go back.
Gut instinct , tells me the SFA will just repeat the same formula as before , however it may well get to the point of Rangers under -19 side playing out of Airdrie's ground with a massive points deduction and being relegated. Sometimes the rules of economics and the crazy world of football can throw up some up bizarre twists, all the talk of the march through the leagues – may well be interrupted
” Stockbridge is confident that turnover from season tickets, sponsorship, corporate hospitality and other revenue — about £20m last season — could be upped to £30m in 2013/14. ”
———————————————————————————————————————————————
If Rangers turned over 20 million last year with 1.5 million of overhead cuts then their losses will be around 10 million as I predicted, I am pleased to read the income projections for this year exceed my own and the break even figure of 28 million is more than achievable, which is better than my 3 million projected loss.
It appears the Trading position of Rangers this year will be sound, and any talk of administration is not realistic given these figures and projections.
Bill1903 says:
August 12, 2013 at 5:04 pm
Whats happened to Charlotte recently?
Has there been some legal action to shut her up maybe?
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
He recently got a new job as a consultant and is a bit busy to post these days.
😆
From Chris Musson’s article
“Stockbridge claimed he had dramatically cut costs over the last season with the player wage bill down from £28m to £8m. Another £1.5m of cuts have been found across the club, with ideas like bringing security in-house.”
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Sorry to go back to this; I’ve been busy.
The in-house security would be the new firm, of which Charles Green was a director. Who was the other director? Are they drawing any income from that company? Are they still directors?
What other ‘internal’ companies have become suppliers to TRFC and who are the directors of those companies? Do those directors have any income drawn from those companies?
All sorts of ways to take the money out of a company legitimately.
Carl31 says:
August 12, 2013 at 4:27 pm
wottpi says:
August 12, 2013 at 3:34 pm
Phil MacGiollaBhain has tweeted this afternoon that sources frm inside Ibrox say – the idea that last year’s IPO raised £20m is “laughable”.
Eco/wottpi,
Agreed its usually best to see doc evidence. Maybe something from CF will pop up on the radar?
================================================
It wouldn’t surprise me if possibly even the Board doesn’t actually know the figure and I would doubt that more than 2/3 people would be in the know if, in fact, that £22.5 million wasn’t raised by the flotation.
If there was any proof of this I would expect that LSE would have no option but to immediately suspend trading in RFC shares.
However the problem with any Ibrox source is it comes with an agenda especially at the level who would know the truth one way or another.
http://rangers.g3dhosting.com/regulatory_news_article/296
Scroll up a third of the page.
1. Proceeds from issue of shares @ 30, 798,000.
2. Loans 0.
3. Net cash from financing activities @ 32, 726,000.
I suggest Rangers got their money in cash.
Steerpike says:
August 12, 2013 at 5:06 pm
“there is no debt to swap.”
————————–
Steerpike, if you seriously want to follow this story then you need to start by jettisoning any preconception that the financial methods employed resemble anything that might be described as ethical. This is more like science than accountancy. You look for cause and effect not for well ordered transactions in a ledger. The whole point about this charade is that you are not meant to know what is going on.
Why oh why I hear you ask yourself, would people order their financial affairs in such a manner that the details would be obscure. If that is your reaction then you are displaying the kind of naivete that the non-financially minded on the blog would have displayed a year or two ago. As someone claiming financial training such shenanigans should not come as a complete shock to you.
So lets look at the basics. Ticketus have won a claim for £18M+ from Craig Whyte arising from the Rangers(IL) deal. Where is that money going to come from? In the time I have been reading this blog I have seen no transactions by Craig Whyte (and there have been many) where he dug into his own pocket to make a payment. Who in this world has £18M spare change for such exploits. No-one. It is financed (borrowed).
I posted up a document the other day that showed an e:mail trail between Ticketus, D&P and Craig Whyte. Ticketus are inextricably linked in this whole saga. To win their court case they had to have plausible deniability that they knew the use to which Whyte intended to put the money. Of course they did but they were able to convince the court otherwise.
This is a complex tale. It is valid to ask questions but you must know that this in no Timmy conspiracy. It is a highly complex fraud and you will encounter no fluorescent road signs en-route to prevent you getting lost.
Ticketus will want their £18M+ back. Exactly how they will achieve this is not clear. Whether they are still in cahoots with Craig Whyte is not clear. Cause and effect. Action and reaction. You need a blank sheet of paper and a whole heap of logic to be able to follow this tale. Dismissing hypothesis just because they do not fit some preconceived norm will encumber you in reaching an understanding of the possibilities.
I suggested, about a month ago, that perhaps Rangers were ‘front loading’ with players to have a good start in their League 1 campaign, in the hope of having it won by Christmas, which would allow them to sell those players in January to keep going to the end of the season. I had not considered that it might be BDO doing the selling.
scottc says:
August 12, 2013 at 6:47 pm
From Chris Musson’s article
“Stockbridge claimed he had dramatically cut costs over the last season with the player wage bill down from £28m to £8m. Another £1.5m of cuts have been found across the club, with ideas like bringing security in-house.”
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The in-house security would be the new firm, of which Charles Green was a director. Who was the other director? Are they drawing any income from that company? Are they still directors?
What other ‘internal’ companies have become suppliers to TRFC and who are the directors of those companies? Do those directors have any income drawn from those companies? All sorts of ways to take the money out of a company legitimately.
=========================================================
It’s Garrion Security Services Ltd and the two directors are Green and Stockbridge who also happen to be the two directors in Rangers Retail Ltd.
Strange that Green hasn’t been replaced – why is he still a director in these companies. Why hasn’t Mather tidied that up ❓
The transfer from the previous security company is taking part in stages and will be a while before they take over completely and therefore before full savings can be made.
I read elsewhere Mark Guidi was assuring everyone on Radio Clyde tonight there was ‘no chance’ of TRFC going into Administration. This is the same guy who previously assured everyone on the same station HMRC would settle with RFC for £3-5M.
Are some Scottish Journalists actually the thickest Journalists that ever existed? That may seem harsh, but given the utter tripe that is regularly written or spoken by them what else are we to think!
Following the question about where Charlotte has mysteriously disappeared to …
More questions
Who appointed Charlie as a consultant and to whom does he report at Ibrox?
Why did the bears not ask that very question last week?
What ever happened to Alec’s Channel 4 programme that was mysteriously stopped at the eleventh hour?
How many people are contributing to this blog under the Steerpike franchise and who is paying them and why?
Finloch says:
August 12, 2013 at 7:49 pm
“More questions”
————————
Finloch, I’ve got 15 minutes before I depart for 5 a sides so if it doesn’t seem too flippant I’ll fill the void by having a bash at your quiz.
Q. Who appointed Charlie as a consultant and to whom does he report at Ibrox?
A. Ticketus and Ticketus.
Q. Why did the bears not ask that very question last week?
A. They still think its a Timmy conspiracy.
Q. What ever happened to Alec’s Channel 4 programme that was mysteriously stopped at the eleventh hour?
A. Its been shelved until the true extent of the fraud becomes clear.
Q. (1)How many people are contributing to this blog under the Steerpike franchise and (2)who is paying them and (3)why?
A1. It doesn’t matter. The blog has got a momentum of its own and attempts to mislead will rapidly be found out.
A2. Ticketus via Media House.
A3. They’re so desperate they’ll try anything.
How did I do?
Good evening castofthousands,
” This is more like science than accountancy”.
Thank you for your response, science and accountancy are built on the same principles of critical thinking, both require testable evidence, they do not rely on unsupported assumptions.
Links between Ticketus, CW and D&P are not evidence of links between these parties and TRFC or RIFC plc., in science there must be a physical link between cause and effect, and this link is called evidence, you have none, in other words you are assuming a link exists to fit your hypothesis.
I will discard my skepticism when there is evidence that links the 18 million Ticketus debt to either TRFC or RIFC plc, until then I go where the evidence in the balance sheet leads me, some may call this naivety I prefer rationality.
Some are convinced this is a complex maze of fraud, in my opinion they are mistaken, the evidence is incontrovertible, CW is liable for the Ticketus debt and he will lose 18 million for his incompetence.
Let me say further, even if Ticketus or CW had bought shares in either TRFC or RIFC plc directly or indirectly , this means they bought and paid for shares, this is evidence they bought and paid for shares, period, any further assumptions must be supported by evidence.
Occam’s razpr states that among competing hypotheses, the hypothesis with the fewest assumptions should be selected. In other words, the simplest explanation is usually the correct one.
Stockbridge told the ‘influential 200’ that there was £10m in the bank, he couldn’t break it down between IPO and ‘other’ income. I’m no Warren Buffet but shouldn’t a Finance Director, who knows that he’ll be questioned on precisely this, know how much of the IPO money is left?
Wouldn’t it be good practice to lodge the IPO and S T money in seperate accounts in order to monitor income/expenditure.
Today Mr Stockbridge revealed that there was no IPO money left, it had all been spent!
Therefore the money at bank can only be ST money. 34000*£300=£10.2M.
Either
All the ST money for this season has been forwarded by supporters
Or
The company which is handling the sale of STs via an instalment plan has fronted the TRFC a cash advance which will be repaid, with interest, at some point in the future.
Or
The cash at bank is a combination of the remains of last year’s ST money and the money for STs paid in full.
Or
CM is planning to sign 8 players on contracts of approx £1.5m total (excluding bonus), added to the current £8m, plus staff costs, running costs (including the electrics), directors bonuses, buses and insurance. There isn’t enough money in the bank……..
How many of those 34,000 are full priced STs ,I would guess a fair few thousand are concessions and kids
so I would be surprised if all the £10m in the bank is ST income .
Then again has anyone seen the proof there £10m in the bank . 🙄 🙄
Look who’s back!!
Charlotte Fakeovers @CharlotteFakes 1m
How long will £10m last? Claim looming, notification 3 weeks ago. Not Craig Whyte related.
http://i.imgur.com/1GTe9T2.jpg
#WaitingOnGccSafety
Isn’t it the case that on the off chance they do release audited accounts, it will be cash in bank as of 30 June that is stated?
As image was rather small, here is transcript….
I’m not sure if you’re aware, but there is a deadline today for RFC’s lawyers to revert to mine and
if they do not comply, I have given my lawyers instructions to begin proceedings in the commercial
high court in edinburgh for a claim of £3.4m which I believe is an announceable event under LSE AIM rules
paulsatim says:
August 12, 2013 at 8:59 pm
————————————-
Maybe so but as evidence goes, it’s poor even by CtH’s standards – it’s frankly meaningless.
This could be two lines from anything – “deadline” is spelled wrongly, there is no “commercial high court” in Edinburgh, who on earth could be suing Sevco for £3.4M?
Still stirs the pot up a bit but I would put my house on not seeing this in any Scottish newspaper anytime soon.
Now who could Sevco be indebted to ,to the tune of £3.4m
Can.t be a leccy bill Murray and Mather cover them ,the old gas prices took a sharp increase though ,anyone heard who on the board covers the gas bills 🙄
http://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/the-courts/court-of-session/taking-action/commercial-actions
Commercial Actions
The Court of Session has had special provisions for dealing with commercial actions for many years. In broad terms their purpose is to enable specialist judges to handle commercial cases quickly and flexibly.
The definition of “commercial action” is broad and so a wide range of cases may be dealt with under those arrangements. Broadly speaking, they include any transaction or dispute of a commercial or business nature. Examples are banking and insurance transactions, contracts for the sale or supply of goods or services (national or international) and commercial leases. The court also deals with disputes about building contracts, partnership agreements and business property. Company petitions, raised under the Acts found in Division I of Volume 4 of the Parliament House Book, are also dealt with by the commercial judges.
Something is ringing bells about a pension fund ‘loaning’ money to this value to Whyte.
Could this be the cause of all the warnings of financial woe from the peepil ,who knows but if Sevco suffer the same fate as the old club within such a short timeframe then IMO there should be plenty of heads rolling among the peepil and their friends in the 6th floor and newsrooms
£10 million left at Sevco. I remember someone was promised that amount not to long ago (30 secs in )..Lest we forget. Good to see CF back.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rplaYVgBk0E
valentinesclown
I remember seeing that at the time and thinking,someone is at the wind up but after watching it after all that has gone on ,all I can say is how did the Sevco fans ever take this guy seriously
Bawsman says:
August 12, 2013 at 9:15 pm
Something is ringing bells about a pension fund ‘loaning’ money to this value to Whyte.
====================
I reckon you’re right but this claim would be against RFC(IL) would it not ? Maybe we’re going to get someone challenging the “same club” argument.
Reilly1926 says:
August 12, 2013 at 9:35 pm
—————————————–
Yes but it is nothing to do with the Court of Session. The action involving the pension monies calls at the High Court in London in October; it is part of the case against Withey/Collyer Bristow and is one of the most eagerly awaited cases this year. There are several parties taking action against the legal firm including Duff & Phelps, HMRC, the pension trustees, Merchant Turnaround, Uncle Tom Cobley et al.
It should be starting just as we get the decision in the UTT.
Rangers beat Brechin about a year ago, Charles Green had this to say.
http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport/football/rangers-richer-than-celtic-in-a-year-says-1190504
Rangers will be financially stronger than Celtic in a year, claims Charles Green
30 Jul 2012 18:48
THE Ibrox club’s supremo was bullish about Rangers’ future after their opening vistory over Brechin City in the Ramsdens Cup.
RANGERS owner Charles Green last night insisted the Ibrox club would be in a stronger financial position than Celtic in a year.
The battered and bruised club began life as a newco with an edgy extra-time 2-1 Ramsdens Cup win at Brechin but the new chief executive was bullish about the club’s future and claimed within 12 months their balance sheet would be stronger than the SPL champions.
Green said: “If you look at the balance sheets at the end of next season you should see the strength of the two companies.
“We are in the Third Division and Celtic are in the SPL and what I’d like you to do is promise me at the end of this season, when all the games are played, examine the balance sheets of the clubs and tell me which one is the strongest?
“Then let’s see who has got the strongest balance sheet.
“We’ve not got the debt that any of these clubs have and on the last day of the season I would really enjoy some clever financial analyst looking at the balance sheets and debt-to-equity ratio of every club in Scotland.”
Green revealed he will jet to London today to start the process of bringing £20-30million investment into the club by floating them on the stock exchange.
He said: “We said we would raise between £20million and £30m but the reason we couldn’t put the season tickets on sale was the same reason we couldn’t go out and raise further money until we knew we had a football club that was going to be allowed to ply its trade.
“That’s why we got that signed off on Friday and we have a meeting at 8.45am on Monday so we are hardly letting the grass grow under our feet.
“This is the start of the process on Monday when we go to London to start the meeting with stockbrokers.
“That is when the fans can take up ownership. They can buy into the club.”
Green, who revealed the newco will change their name to “The Rangers Football Club” this week, said he had no intention of cashing in on Ibrox or Murray Park.
The chief executive said: “Ibrox and Murray Park are owned by Sevco who will be changing its name to The Rangers Football Club.
“All the assets are owned by the company and nobody is trying to do anything with the assets. Ibrox and Murray Park won’t be sold.”
lifted this from “Jonnybhoy” on the LSE site. His info, just passing it on.
The game is afoot!
Today 17:13 2,020,000 shares traded looks like the EGM is a goer, this could be a good time for the fans to bail out and salvage what they can from their investment and let the big boys duke it out.
=================================================================================
General consensus over the last few days is that the SP is on its way down even more sharply. Looks like someone has themselves a fairly hefty bargaining chip. This boardroom battle is preparing to be a rather bloody spat.
Pass the popcorn
fergusslayedtheblues says:
August 12, 2013 at 8:55 pm
How many of those 34,000 are full priced STs ,I would guess a fair few thousand are concessions and kids
so I would be surprised if all the £10m in the bank is ST income .
Then again has anyone seen the proof there £10m in the bank
________________________
Although a guesstimate you can see a possible breakdown here
https://drive.google.com/?tab=wo&authuser=0#my-drive scroll down to grey box for 2013/14 SB sales and income of £8.149M.
Of course we do not know if that is all in and it excludes the £1.74m VAT that may or may not have been paid.
One more thing. I see BS claiming wage bill is down to £8m. If that relates to players wages that is what was calculated a while back from the IPO and appears in the spreadsheet which means the £1.562m red line stands but will probably be much higher as result of there only being £10m including SB sales as a start point.
fergusslayedtheblues says:
August 12, 2013 at 9:33 pm
3 0 Rate This
valentinesclown
I remember seeing that at the time and thinking,someone is at the wind up but after watching it after all that has gone on ,all I can say is how did the Sevco fans ever take this guy seriously
———————————————————————————————–
Sevco fans will follow follow anyone that spouts the same them and us drivel and Charlie was really good at that. From orange tops to meeting supporters groups in NI , to slagging of SFA and using words like bigots etc.. these are a few of their favorite things. Icing on the cake was the support from Cheeky chappie giving to Charlie (after getting his million shares) season books sold. Then year later cardigan back on the board again season tickets sold. It is the golden goose that keeps given and the spivs will always reap the rewards.
So not only the fans are duped or easy meat. It is there for all to see how these people work and they cannot believe their luck that not only do they take the piss they get paid well for it. Only in Scotland and only in Govan. As you said fergusslayedtheblues it is like a wind up and chances are it will become another wind up for the club and new spivs or rangers men (maybe one in the same) will come in and no doubt do the same. Meantime the SFA will do what they are best at.
Charlie back and now CF back it just keeps giving.
£3.4m??? How about this? Some time ago, somebody on here mentioned an acquaintance who had allegedly made an initial loan to Charles Green et al. As far as I can recall the loan was soemthing of the order of £500k and the return to be paid after flotation was a clean £1m. (The figures might be out but that was the gist of it). Mr Green had tried to convince the party to take RIFC shares instead of the money but that individual had insisted on the cash and walked away. Now what if someone else was insisting on the cash but, as it was such a relatively large sum, CG had been stalling to the point where the loaning party had had to get lawyers involved?
I’m not Charlotte, but here’s exclusive footage of the ‘influential 200’ meeting last Thursday. Watch JT grab the floor after Craig Mather’s rallying call to arms.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=70iNkQA8YU4&feature=youtube_gdata_player
Very strange tweet from Charlotte, no email headers –
Rafat?
Maybe this?
Charlottes Faither @PJBHoops 1m
Surely not David Murray looking for £3.4 mill for the sale of car park and Edminston House and wanting the money pronto! That would be funny
Sandaza, by any chance?
It’s a school night so I’m off to bed, but I’ll leave you all with a reminder that 3-4 months ago Brian Stockbridge was indulged by the Herald who gave him a platform to say Sevco turnover could exceed £100M. The next day Graham Spiers wrote a serious article commenting on whether Sevco could achieve this, but he did not dismiss it.
Tomorrow the Herald will report that the earth is flat, babies are delivered by storks, and the moon is made of green cheese.
davythelotion says:
August 12, 2013 at 8:37 pm
Today Mr Stockbridge revealed that there was no IPO money left, it had all been spent!
Therefore the money at bank can only be ST money. 34000*£300=£10.2M.
===========================================================
Your forgetting the £1.5 million which Stockbridge said was income from SportsDirect contained in the £10 million kitty. It probably isn’t income but a loan from SportsDirect but it means the ST money in the kitty is only £8.5 million.
Surely it would be be poor accounting procedure to use up the capital from the flotation before you had exhausted the income from last year’s STs – that’s why I think probably the money left in the kitty is mainly from this season’s STs. But that’s only a guess.
ecobhoy says:
August 12, 2013 at 10:36 pm
%%%%%%%%%
The £10m could be part Zebra, part SD front cash (secured on property) and part VAT. At running costs of £2-3m per month, that gives four months expenditure. Future Income will have to be split between running costs and interest payments. Not forgetting the eye watering director costs.
That will leave enough for some MDF and some nails for ‘infrastructure’ repairs.
For any lurking journalist…
A couple of simple questions to ask Stockbridge, [& separately for Regan and/or Doncaster ];
“Are you able to personally reassure all Scottish football fans that TRFC will be able to to fulfill all its fixtures in the 2013/14 season ? And if not, why not ?”
Can anyone remember the exact securities pledged against the £1.5m drawdown from sportsdirect?
It might be we’re at a stage where it’s beneficial for some shareholders to force an administration, even if they lose their initial investment
Ok I’ve amended the file at previous link which is now here
https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B62m3ggkEX2RR0NjN3NiaXFZdDQ/edit?usp=sharing
I moved Yr2 SB sales into Yr1 but kept Vat due in Yr2. The recalculated Bottom Line at end of Yr 1 is £16.672m i.e what should be left in the bank if all the other sums in Yr1 column are accurate and were received and spent. However we are told only £10m remains so an adjusting entry of £6.672m has been applied and result can be seen in Botton line row of -£6.293m the amount in the red by this coming seasons end if the income and expenditure shown in Yr2 is in the ballpark.
The income in Yr2 is calculated as £6.910M and expenditure as £24.281m (£2.5m less if spend on Ibrox not done) with not a lot of scope for reduction elsewhere, so it looks grim. The £6.910m income still to arrive will reduce the burn rate by under £1m over 8 months and if expenditure is spread over same period it gives a burn of £3m (24/8) less the income (call it £1m a month) so the £10m plus income to come will last 5 months, just enough to get past lock in dates……
Ironic that Charlotte has reappeared with the suggestion of impending doom, on the day someone hawks 2m shares. Could that be £850k of the required sum?
Another thought crossed what is left of my mind, None of the last three custodians actually paid a penny to own this ex football club! That in itself shows a desire to make cash without investing any, an unhealthy formula.
On “Steerpike’s” contributions, I tend to agree he/she is a multiple contributor using the same name. One is meticulous in grammar , dialogue and trend. Another clone seems slightly different in style. “Steerpike” incidentally is the Company name used for Tax avoidance purposes by a famous Pop Star…………………..
………….Would you believe “Sting”……
paulsatim says:
August 12, 2013 at 10:27 pm
Maybe this?
Charlottes Faither @PJBHoops 1m
Surely not David Murray looking for £3.4 mill for the sale of car park and Edminston House and wanting the money pronto! That would be funny.
==========================================================
Don’t think the numbers quite fit.
Price for Albion Carpark was £1.5 million + VAT and Edmiston House was £800 K + VAT. According to Rangers AIM Prospectus 10% + VAT deposits were paid on paid for each property by TRFCL on 22 November 2012.
Full amount for both properties including VAT is £2.76 million and that’s without deducting the £276,000 inc VAT for both deposits.
The full price had to be paid by 15/01/2013 for Albion Carpark and by 28/02/2013 for Edmiston House – would DM have waited as long as this to act and, in any case, it looks to me from a quick read that if TRFCL didn’t pay the full amount all that happens is they lost their deposits.
But that would mean they would need to keep paying the Albion Carpark lease.
The operating costs of 16 million in the interim accounts equates to annual operating costs of roughly 28 million, we have heard the annual turnover was 20 million, incurring an operating loss of 8 million, approx 5 million more than projected. If we assume the operating costs rose in the last 5 months by 2 million ( bonuses etc), it makes the annual trading loss 10 million.
It seems 30 million outgoings is about as low as Rangers can manage, although this may be reduced by 1.5 million savings, lets call it 27 or 28 million to break even, with 8 million on playing staff, possibly 7 million next year.
20 million income last year is being projected to be up to 30 million, but lets say 27-28 million, an increase in income of 7-8 million due to Puma, Blackthorn, Sports Direct and additional TV revenue.
Sod’s law factor of 10% may result in an operating loss of around 2-3 million at worst.
35% on season ticket sales next year will increase revenue by about 2-3 million and its break even on about a 27-28 million turnover.
The few figures provided by Stockbridge confirm my original trading position guess will not be too far away, diluting the shares for 5 million is not going to be difficult with these figures in my opinion.
I expect Rangers to enter the SPL turning over 30 million with 8 million in playing costs and breaking even, they could make 5 million profit in their first year back and all of this will go on players wages. 37 million turnover with 13 million on wages, basically the old Celtic model.
phill450 says:
August 12, 2013 at 11:00 pm
Can anyone remember the exact securities pledged against the £1.5m drawdown from sportsdirect?
It might be we’re at a stage where it’s beneficial for some shareholders to force an administration, even if they lose their initial investment
==========================================================
No specific securities were named and the AIM Prospectus states: ‘ Any sums drawn down under the facility would be secured by a debenture to be given by Rangers Retail over all its freehold and leasehold property.’
Does Rangers Retail have any freehold or leasehold property? I wonder whether the new Airport and Belfast stores which I presume are leased are in the name of Rangers Retail. If there is nothing held by Rangers Retail then I am sure Ashley will have the debenture secured on property held by TRFCL or RIFC Plc.
Green and Stockbridge are the two Rangers directors on the Rangers Retail Ltd board.