Comment on Podcast Episode 1 by BigGav.
Cluster One says:
February 10, 2014 at 7:56 pm
At the eleventh hour a “Conditional membership of the SFA” was granted despite the fact that no such category exists within the Articles of Association.
There has been too much made of this, as I explained yesterday (http://www.tsfm.org.uk/2014/01/the-blind-men-and-the-elephant-a-cautionary-tale/comment-page-32/#comment-85970).
‘Conditional’ does not refer to a category of membership – Sevco were granted “conditional Full Membership of the SFA”, the ‘conditional’ meaning simply that the membership would be revoked if OldCo failed to transfer their SPL share to Dundee by 3rd August 2012.
There is much to dislike about the Five Way Agreement, but the ‘conditional membership’ thing is just a red herring.
Podcast Episode 1
February 24, 2014 at 3:37 pm
But the real sweetner is the share deal and teh security which de-risks it completely and throws an upside to anyone keen to try and get a controlling interest.
At todays market cap (£18m roughly) this deal potentially gives Easdale and Laxey another 8% of the share equity. But its got a doozy of a no lose clause: If the share price halves between now and 1st september at any point, they’ll get 16% of the equity instead of the 8%.
It’s only the interest (the ‘premium’) that is convertible to shares, not the principal, and it only applies to Laxey, not Easdale.
The premium on the Laxey Facility is payable in cash or, at Laxey’s discretion, in ordinary shares of 1p each, at any point between the date of the facility agreement and the first anniversary of the date of the facility agreement.
The number of ordinary shares of 1p each which may be issued will be calculated using the lower of either 26.5 pence, being the mid-market closing price of the company’s shares on 21 February 2014, or the lowest price at which any equity fundraising is carried out prior to the first anniversary of the date of the Laxey Facility agreement.
Thus the amount (£150k) is only equivalent to 0.8%, not 8%.
Also, a lower conversion price only applies if further equity fundraising has been carried out within the next year at a lower figure; other drops in the share price don’t affect it.
Nevertheless, it’s still a very good deal for Laxey – they can’t lose, really.
Podcast Episode 1
February 21, 2014 at 7:12 pm
My thoughts are that there must have been some charge over the RFC assets, which only Whyte could release. It seems that Green needed the release to be signed, otherwise matters couldn’t progress. All I can come up with is Whyte’s floating charge, but I had understood from comments on here that his floating charge couldn’t survive the transfer of the assets anyway?
As I said the other day, I believe the ‘deed of release’ does relate to the floating charge.
It wouldn’t survive the transfer of assets, but would still have been applicable in the CVA scenario (if there was any real debt attached to it, which D&P disputed).
Podcast Episode 1
February 20, 2014 at 6:40 pm
They can if the pre-emption rights have been disapplied. Wasn’t there some sort of vote about that in the run up to Christmas? 😈
There was a vote (‘Resolution 10’), but it failed to achieve the required 75% majority to pass.
However, I think Wallace (or was it Somers?) stated after the AGM that they would try again to get it through at a later date.
The Lost Voice of the Armageddon Virus
I see that Dave King’s carefully crafted statement from yesterday:
“All of our season ticket money will be invested in the football squad”
has been dutifully reported in the Herald and Evening Times by eminent journalist Christopher Jack as:
“Dave King has vowed to plough all season ticket cash into the transfer kitty in the coming weeks”
which is not what he said AT ALL.
I think King’s statement is more notable for what it DOESN’T say – noticeably missing is any promise that additional money will be provided by King and his fellow-directors to fund the expected full-scale squad rebuild.
Of course, any “journalist” worthy of the name could easily pick up a phone and ask Mr King to explain his statement, but for some reason this never happens…
THAT Debate, and the Beauty of Hindsight
April 27, 2017 at 17:25
The Bampot view was that it wasn’t whether the EBT scheme was legal or iIlegal but the fact that loan details and side letters were not included in contracts provided to the SFA that broke the rules
Meaning the Bampot view was
Titles should be stripped irrespective of whether EBTs were legal sa there are numerous examples of the SFA punishing clubs for not disclosing full details of player contracts
Indeed, LNS found RFC(IL) GUILTY and fined them £250,000, so the “no sporting advantage” argument cannot logically be based on the freedom of other clubs to do the same thing.
Good Try Mr. McKenzie
February 2, 2017 at 20:24
Impeccable logic, Cluster One.
– “Rangers Football Club don’t lose 4-1”
– “We have just lost 4-1”
It therefore follows:
– “We are not Rangers Football Club”
Peace – Not War
November 4, 2016 at 19:36
And who knows, maybe the statement attributed to Warburton and commented on earlier today, is a sign that the PR penny may have dropped, and signals a drastic re-think??
John, I think you missed the point that the Warbmeister’s statement (“Joey Barton can inspire younger players to the next level”) was made back in May this year, shortly after his signing.
Look Back to Look Forward
jimbo 17th February 2016 at 5:08 pm #
In the absence of a Stat. person replying I have worked out that after 232 games in the Championship, 12 out of 17 penalties awarded were to the SFAs favoured club. That is 70% of all penalties go to TRFC.
According to the figures you posted earlier, it’s 12 out of 29 (12 to TRFC and 17 to all the rest put together). Still suspicious though!
Also it’s 116 games (you counted twice – two teams play in each match!).
OMG! Just seen I have a photo of Spiers as my avatar.
How do I choose a different one?