Podcast Episode 3 – David Low

By

EasyJambo says: April 25, 2014 at 1:21 pm ecobhoy says: April 25, …

Comment on Podcast Episode 3 – David Low by ecobhoy.

easyJambo says:
April 25, 2014 at 1:21 pm
ecobhoy says:
April 25, 2014 at 1:11 pm

In the talk of the 1p shares let’s not forget that as well as the nominal 1p share situation that some/most of the original consortium of investors in Sevco 5088 whose dosh paid D&P for the purchase of the Rangers assets and business only actually paid 1p a share.

This included Blue Pitch, Margarita and other anonymous offshore investors and, of course, Ally was another beneficiary of the 1p a share possibly for his services to ST sales. He might have been better accepting a knighthood but then that didn’t work-out for Fred the Shred although DM is steadfastly holding onto his gong 😎
============================
Only Green, Ahmad and McCoist got substantial shareholdings at £1p.

BPH, Margarita, Ashley & co all got half their shares at 99p and were given a bonus of the same number of shares at 1p, hence the average price paid was 50p.

The big losers were Laxey and a few others who paid £1, although some were paid off in cash or additional shares to make up the difference to the 70p IPO price
====================================================
I believe there were more at 1p and I don’t have the figures in front oif me at the moment but I seem to remember there were 19 million 1p shares issued. There weren’t many £1 shares and these came mainly just before flotation when the original flotation price was being pitched at £1.50 but no one was interested in the City.

Obviously Ashleys got the transfer of some of Green’s 1p shares to reduce their £1 share price to the 70p flotation price and others were also looking for a refund but this raises the point as to whether this was legit under AIM rules and it’s difficult to get the full details on it.

McCoist got his 1p shares much later than the other because he wasn’t a member of the original consortium. I have a breakdown of the shares issued at different prices and I’ll try and dig it out over the weekend but from memory it doesn’t match what you are saying.

A lot of confusion has always existed on this issue down to basic secrecy but also the production of the investment marketing document prepared which I don’t think was ever actually enacted which pitched the buy one get one free or almost free. But I really don’t think they ever accounted for many shares sales.

Always remember that the original consortium were expecting to be paid back in cash after a relatively short period and Green apparently changed the rules of the game by issuing shares. I also don’t believe for a minute that Hughes of Zeus paid more than 1p for all of his shares.

It’s probably no longer that important in the grand scheme of things now but I honestly don’t think it’s clear-cut although however it was done the small group of original Sevco 5088 investors put the money together to buy Rangers and we still don’t have a clue who a lot of them are.

ecobhoy Also Commented

Podcast Episode 3 – David Low
essexbeancounter says:
May 4, 2014 at 2:05 pm

Secondly, thanks for the memories. We also used to ‘borrow’ our school’s new video (VHS or Betamax, can’t recall) for what I will euphamistically and very loosely call ‘innovative french lessons.’
======================================================================
Smugas…and before such ground-breaking technology was available, we modern language students had to make do with the Cosmo cinema, just off Sauchiehall St…particularly on wet Wednesday afternoons which were designated “sports days” at Strathclyde University (Echobhoy will back me up…won’t you Echobhoy?)
=============================
I have no echoes at all from this past – either auditory or visual – that I am prepared to admit to 😆

What I do recall is that when the Royal College of Science & Technology was granted Yooni status then in first year you had to pass the equivalent of a French Lower by attending night classes at Pitt Street. That was never a requirement previously required for the guys who designed the famous ships built on Clydeside.

As a double language Higher Student it meant I could attend the Cosmo for the more serious business of winching and not watching the arty farty subtitled French films .

Btw Wednesday afternoons weren’t just ‘sports day’ for Strathclyde but for all Scottish Unis so they could compete with each other.

However Essex as you and I know – we sadly both spent more time in the snug of The Griffin than exercising our tonsil skills and developing a French palate – well that’s my story and I’m sticking to it 🙄


Podcast Episode 3 – David Low
Flocculent Apoidea says:
May 4, 2014 at 11:28 am

I can imagine the Ibrox club putting out a warning about counterfeit merchandise and that the proceeds don’t go to the club! They wouldn’t, would they?
============================
Certainly Bears continually moan about shoddy merchandise wrt to their current ‘offishal’ kit 🙄

However if the club is really only getting 75p per shirt could they really argue with any force that significant proceeds are being lost to the club?


Podcast Episode 3 – David Low
briggsbhoy says:
May 4, 2014 at 10:49 am

Ecobhoy surely this another example of things not being thought through by supporters from down Govan way. I would be surpised if whoever holds the current contracts for shirts and Sevco itself wouldn’t make a copyright or breach of copyright claim against anyone attempting such. We may of course find that there could be a legal case to establish if Mr Green did in fact buy all this alleged history, logos etc.
=======================================
I think they have been thought through because no official logos are used and that includes the stars. From what I have seen of the shirts there is nothing that TRFCL could legally do and win.

Oh a dead club might huff and puff but you put your finger on an important point that could cause Rangers difficulty. Even if they could get a case into court what else might emerge in evidence and enter the public domain?

I think that’s a risk too far for them and I really don’t see how they could win their case. I seem to remember that not long after DM came to Ibrox he claimed the Follow Follow Trademark for Rangers and was told where to go and despite rumblings of court action it never happened because FF or possibly Mark Dingwall own the Follow Follow Tm.

Indeed if the new shirt is produced I think ‘Follow Follow’ would be a very apt statement on the new shirts for ‘new’ supporters buying them. The other design elements are the Lion Rampant and basically use of the colours red, white and blue. Possible there could be an argument for ‘passing-off’ but it’s a weak one IMO if it exists at all.

But


Recent Comments by ecobhoy

Did Stewart Regan Ken Then Wit We Ken Noo?
jimmci says:
April 24, 2015 at 1:50 pm

And why did we not get the panel’s reasoning together with the decision last night?
———————————————-

Simples ❗ The Decision was the easy bit 😆 The explanation to sell it was the hard bit and despite a nightshift they appear to have fluffed their lines AGAIN 🙄


Did Stewart Regan Ken Then Wit We Ken Noo?
Allyjambo says:
April 24, 2015 at 2:18 pm

Might I suggest that SD’s main interest in this meeting was to put the RIFC board straight on some matters regarding the security over the IP and just how watertight it is, rather than to discuss funding or any ‘amicable’ discussion how best to move the club forward!
———————————————————-
You might be right but would SD want the club suffering another Insolvency Event? Perhaps they were asking for the second loan tranche of £5 million which the new board apparently rejected on taking control.

I have undernoted a reply I made to parttimearab last night which may have been missed but may also be relevant.

3. Insolvency events

(i) The inability of the Company to pay its debts as they fall due within the meaning of section 123 of the Insolvency Act 1986 (the “Act”);
(ii) The issue of an application for an administration order or a notice of intention to appoint an administrator in relation to the Company;
(iii) The passing of a resolution or order for the Company’s winding-up, dissolution, administration or reorganisation;
(iv) The declaration of a moratorium in relation to any of the Company’s indebtedness;
(v) The making of any arrangement or any proposal for any arrangement with any of the Company’s creditors; and
(vi) The appointment of a liquidator, receiver, administrator, supervisor or other similar officer in respect of any of the Company’s assets.

Now I haven’t a clue whether that has anything to do with the SPFL Rule Change. But it’s clear that there could be various stages in an Insolvency Event and perhaps the rule change is to cover all eventualities which might not have been previously defined in the Rule Book.

In particular I look at:

(vi) The appointment of a liquidator, receiver, administrator, supervisor or other similar officer in respect of any of the Company’s assets.

And I think of the various charges which have been placed on Rangers assets wrt the £5 million loan. I have previously posted that the contracts wrt a Default Event could see the assets pass to SportsDirect without any court hearing and SD also already has the power to appoint a Receiver to deal with any of the assets that pass to it via a loan default event.

Now that might not ultimately lead to a full-blown Insolvency depending on what SD actually decide to do with Rangers. But looking at the above I wonder whether with the SPFL rule change that just taking control of the assets is enough to be classed as an Insolvency Event under SPFL Rules?

Perhaps the SPFL are thinking ahead ?

But does the rule take effect immediately or from the new season?

It seems that if it is immediate and Rangers suffers an Insolvency Event then that would be an automatic 25 points this season and 15 next season. Assuming it is able to survive death a second time.


Did Stewart Regan Ken Then Wit We Ken Noo?
Resin_lab_dog says:
April 24, 2015 at 12:10 pm
ecobhoy says:
April 24, 2015 at 12:00 pm
blu says:
April 24, 2015 at 11:40 am
________________________________________________

From what I saw, all criticisms emanating from ICTFC was directed towards the SFA machinery and not towards CFC. Similarly, I have seen no evidence of any criticism of ICTFC being put forward by CFC. I see that fact as quite telling.

Celtic were quite entitled to make all the statements they made and had the boot been on the other foot, in the circumstances I am sure KC at ICTFC would have done likewise.

Similarly, had the situtaions been reversed w.r.t. the foul, I would have expected CFC to back their player robsutly in the same way that ICTFC did.

This is about governance of the sport, not internecine disagreements between member clubs – for which I am yet to see any cause advanced from either party.
——————————————-
Couldn’t agree more!


Did Stewart Regan Ken Then Wit We Ken Noo?
blu says:
April 24, 2015 at 11:40 am

My view is that Celtic played this one wrong (only in the public nature of it)and it was easy for media outlets to infer cause and effect in the Celtic/Compliance Officer actions.
———————————————–
There is some merit in your view IMO. However there’s a balancing act to be achieved which requires an answer to what the officials saw, didn’t see, or decided or didn’t decide on Sunday.

All I heard in the ground, leaving the ground, on the train, in the pub, was real anger and disbelief at the decision which worsened with the TV replays.

I do think Celtic fans were due an explanation and tbf to Celtic I doubt if they could have forseen what an absolute hash the SFA would make of it. Obviously the SMSM has ridden to the rescue of the SFA so what’s new about that?

But we’re still awaiting the answers requested. Will we get them? Not without keeping the pressure on the SFA on all fronts where Hampden’s dark secrets exist.


Did Stewart Regan Ken Then Wit We Ken Noo?
Gabby says:
April 24, 2015 at 10:18 am

If Celtic really, really felt they needed to send a letter, then this is the type of thing they should have sent…
———————————————
I disagree as the letter you suggest goes way beyond the immediate point which is simply: ‘Please explain how the decision was arrived at’. I say decision because when Celic sent the letter it seemed there had been no decision reached but that the incident had been ‘missed’ by all officials.

Once the SFA provide that info then Celtic can make a decision as to if and how it should proceed with the matter.

My credo in a situation like this is not to give any leeway to a slippery character or room for manoeuvre. Ask the straight simple question and take it from there once the basic position is established.

Never jump fences too soon and never ever jump fences you don’t need to especially if you don’t know what lies in wait on the other side.


About the author