Of Assets and Liabilities

Avatar By

Andrew Woods says: Friday, November 2, 2012 at 13:42 I had …

Comment on Of Assets and Liabilities by Smugas.

Andrew Woods says:
Friday, November 2, 2012 at 13:42

I had a discussion with a Sevconian this morning and he insists that what Mr Charles has done with the Sevco was exactly what Bill Miller said he was going to do with his “Incubator” plan. I’m not at all sure if this is correct. I can’t recall Miller saying anything about a final liquidation. I seem to recall him saying something about tidying the old club up and remerging the 2.

Seems a long time ago but can anyone shed some light ?
——————————–
You’re correct, Incubators don’t tend to be much use when the entity in question is in the liquidiser. If he/she was as insistent as you say I would advise you inform them that D&P accepted a bid of 5m from Chuck as opposed to the 30m from BM as that was to the benefit of the creditors who are HMRC who are the financiers of, amongst other things, our armed forces. Usually the insistence dwindles at this point.

Smugas Also Commented

Of Assets and Liabilities
Summary of my thoughts this morning.

The result. The corporate entity that was Rangers is dead. Can’t be bothered to go into the arguement re club but I certainly can’t deny the brand, for want of a better word, lives on. As long as those who would support the brand accept that the same brand walked away from circa 30m of real debt, ignoring penalties, interest etc then that’s fine by me. Yesterday’s rant on Tommo re the armed forces being a classic denial of this simple truth).

The consequences . Crashed to the lowest division due to years of financial maladministration (at best). The reborn team on the park, regardless of whatever chicanery was used to get them into div 3, will struggle to re-emerge, but if they do, without further financial casualties along the way and with a level of support my own club can only dream of, then good for them. But they have to do it the long way, and the the hard way, for this bampot to walk away, or at least continue to ignore the helping hands, eyes and ears of the spring and summer of 2012.

The penalties. I await the enquiry with interest. The FTTT will hopefully quash any chance of “clerical error” but even still, title stripping would still seem to fall into the consequences camp for me. Greater minds than my own will come up with cause and effect I’m sure but I just keep going back to the quote about actions (referring to only a very short period of time) as being just short of match fixing. As I sat frozen to the knickers, skint, with a greasy pie in my hand for ten years watching the de boers and gascoines of this world extract the urine from my own heroes I remember thinking exactly the same.


Of Assets and Liabilities
But seriously, is Nicky Campbell a bigoit or not…


Of Assets and Liabilities
Before the start M’lud I’d just like to confirm your order of coffee, some sandwiches (not lamb), your black hat and at least three pairs of brown trousers, sizes, och just bring a selection.


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

Avatar