Peace – Not War

By

BLU DECEMBER 14, 2016 at 13:02 Thanks, that makes sense, so basically …

Comment on Peace – Not War by Homunculus.

BLU
DECEMBER 14, 2016 at 13:02

Thanks, that makes sense, so basically they are people who have significant control over the business not because of their shareholding but in their position as a director. 

Homunculus Also Commented

Peace – Not War
CLUSTER ONE
DECEMBER 15, 2016 at 19:53
================================

Given the last several sets of accounts produced by RIFC PLC (for the group) I think it is reasonable to say that they do not have the money to pay for repairs to the roofs, or anything else.

They actually don’t have any money in reserve and are having to borrow money just to keep operating.

If repairs are required they will need either loans, a rights issue, or sale of assets. The loans will have to come from people who are emotionally attached to the club. If not they will be at hugely onerous terms and will require security.


Peace – Not War
UPTHEHOOPS
DECEMBER 15, 2016 at 20:12
================================

I predict that the Supreme Court will uphold the decision of The Court of Session and find in favour of HMRC.

They will find that Lord Carloway (the most senior Judge in Scotland) and his colleagues were correct in finding that the tax was due, as the payments were just that, payments. 


Peace – Not War
Someone might be able to clarify this for me, just a bit confused.

I was under the impression that Dave King (through a trust) controlled around 16% of RIFC PLC. The fact they are not listed, and don’t update the website doesn’t help keeping up to date.

However Dave King is now listed as a Person with Significant Control at the PLC, as is John Bennett.

A PSC is defined as follows

A PSC is someone in your company who:
owns more than 25% of the company’s sharesholds more than 25% of the company’s voting rightsholds the right to appoint or remove the majority of directorshas the right to, or actually exercises significant influence or controlholds the right to exercise or actually exercises significant control over a trust or company that meets any of the other 4 conditions.

That would suggest that he has substantially more control of the shares in the company than I had previously believed. Indeed between the two of them they would appear to control at least half of the shares.

Can anyone shed any light on this, is it old news and I have simply missed it.  


Recent Comments by Homunculus

Moving On Time?
John Clark 21st December 2020 at 23:22

I think the point is that the business has to record the difference between the purchase price of the assets, and their value, in the next set of accounts.

So what they are basically saying (normally) is that we bought that bakery business (for example) for £100 pounds, buy the tangible assets, the ovens etc, are only worth £80 so we paid other £20 for the existing customer base, the reputation etc, and that is just referred to in it's totality as the "goodwill".

As with  lot of accountancy stuff it all just looks like smoke and mirror to lay people like me. 

In Rangers case the tangible assets were, in their opinion worth a whole lot more than what they paid, but they still have to record that figure and like I have been saying, that is the dead giveaway and admission that they underpaid.

I suspect it will be part of BDO's case against the administrator.

As ever this is very much my layman's understanding with apologies to those who actually understand these things.


Moving On Time?
John Clark 18th December 2020 at 18:41

If I remember correctly there was a whole load of discussion wih regards the quality of some of the items and it turned out some was made in China, some was made in India and I think some was made in Europe, I have no idea which manufacturer actually made the stuff but I suspect it was just factories who were able to produce what was required so long as they were given the materials and the patterns.

I don't think that's too unusual but I have no experience in the field. 


Moving On Time?
Timtim 16th December 2020 at 19:54

Clearly the King is dead for Keith.

He has changed sides to the one on which his bread is now buttered.

To be fair on the current board, King's move was a bit off, even for him. He is trying to milk the fans for all he can, the board are not happy about that because that was an integral part of their plan.

They are never going to raise the full amount, certainly not quickly, but I believe he has said they can buy his shares in tranches so he could be getting regular payments from them for quite some time. 


Moving On Time?
John Clark 14th December 2020 at 17:13

I think BDO's £29m civil action against the administrator is more likely to bring out more of the truth than a botched criminal action by Crown Office as reported to them by Police Scotland.

BDO have taken their time, presumably investigated the matter properly and think they have enough to take the matter to the civil Courts. I would be surprised if they don't instruct top civil lawyers to carry out the action on their behalf. 

Bearing in mind BDO have probably already spent a lot of the money they have brought in, another £29m would be a nice wee addition to the pot.


Moving On Time?
John Clark 13th December 2020 at 14:02

 

One thing that still puzzles me is why, it seems, none of the other bidders to purchase the club to keep it going as a 'going concern' did not squeal at the time about the arbitrary selection of Green as the 'preferred' one who could pick up the assets cheap, while the club went into liquidation?

Why Green? why did the Administrators think that would best for them, for the creditors? A short bidding war for the assets would surely have raised at least a few tens of thousands more for the creditors.

==============================================

Absolutely none of that was a factor in the administrator's decision making from what I can see. The creditors were irrelevant. 

They were working towards a pre-determined outcome involving Whyte and Green, There may have been a bit of improvisation when the CVA was rejected and Whyte was no longer required but other than that I firmly believe it was a pre-determined outcome. Let's wait and see what is determined by the ongoing proceedings. 

Remember the sale did not go ahead with the preferred bidder / chosen one. The assets were sold to another company with a very similar name, Sevco Scotland Ltd. No-one seems to ever have answered the question, when was that agreed. I believe novation requires all parties to agree to it. 

The aim was a CVA, a debt free Rangers, still the same club, still in the top division of the league etc.

When that was rejected and liquidation (ongoing) started there was a wee bit of the truth, then the re-writing of history, then where we are now. 

 


About the author