A consortium led by David Low has been in talks with Sir Tom Farmer seeking to purchase Hibernian Football Club. The story has been embargoed for a few weeks, but David agreed to speak to TSFM to give us an exclusive interview and provide us with information about his intentions for the Edinburgh club.
Highlights of the interview include the similarities and differences between the Hibs situation and the one he found at Celtic Pak in 1994; how Scottish Football’s “new level playing field” as Low calls it has created an opportunity for a club like Hibs to be the main challenger to Celtic for honours; the contrast of his consortium’s approach to that of the recent debacle at Ibrox; the role of the fans at every level of the club; the future of Allan Stubbs and Leanne Dempster; and the journey back to the Premiership.
Low is frank about his reputation as a well-known Celtic fan, but highlights his Hibbee credentials and his affection for the club, eschewing the “I was always a Hibbee” line taken by so many people seeking to ingratiate themselves with the locals at various clubs.
Certainly, the experience and finance rolling around Low’s consortium is something that any club could do with, but the fans are crucial to their involvement and interest.
He says he won’t go ahead with the purchase unless the fans are behind them.
“Fans have never been so powerful as they are today, especially with the advent of social media like TSFM”
“We have seen in recent years what a body of fans are capable of when they re together”
“We want to have that togetherness at Hibs, because the only way forward is to have trust between the boardroom and the fans, you only have to look at the levels of distrust between board and fans at Rangers to see that it is a recipe for disaster”
That’s the way to do it, throw away any pretence of being a newspaper.
http://www.pressgazette.co.uk/sports-journalists-cry-foul-amid-suspicions-sun-has-become-newcastle-united-media-partner
Given the volume of RIFC shares traded this morning, I’m expecting a regulatory announcement if any of the significant players are involved.
Big Pink says:
September 1, 2014 at 12:22 pm
In the past many Celtic fans have pointed out – quite correctly – that Celtic can’t be isolated in blame in all of this. The clubs as a collective unit seem to have been voting with their feet from day one. For that reason I think it unfair to single Peter Lawwell out for criticism – although the “bottom line” mentality that Celtic are pursuing is fair game.
====================================================
Well I’m one Celtic fan of coming on for 60 years supporting my club who doesn’t feel an ounce of ‘blame’ for Rangers’ self-inflicated wounds. Indeed they are still self-harming and in the process damaging all of Scottish Football both in financial and sporting integrity terms.
You say:
A helluva lot of clubs only did the right thing because of fan pressure and not because for any other reason. Many clubs also were happy at putting the boot in to get them in the SFL so that every division could feast on the Blue Pound – there was no sporting integrity in that stance but just hard-headed commercialism IMO.
Absolutely no one has singled-out PL for criticism as he did that all by himself with what I believe was a badly misjudged PR stunt worthy of DM which has backfired not only on Lawwell but also on Celtic.
I have mentioned earlier that I am a Lawwell supporter in his governance and the financial strategy that he and the Board have been following. There is nothing wrong IMO with a ‘bottom-line’ stragegy in the current economic climate.
Many would instinctively think that operating a football team isn’t quite the same as canning beans. They would be wrong because the purchase price and quality of the beans are paramount to whether the public purchase what’s on offer. If they look rotten and taste rotten or are more syrup than substance then there won’t be repeat purchases no matter how much the price is reduced.
There has been grumbling for quite some time at Parkhead about various policies which seemed to make little sense in the long-term. Again without turning this into a specific Celtic club issue I think it’s enough to say a lot of the concerns centred round selling the blue-chip players with ‘haddy’ replacements being purchased and when it came to strenthening for the CH qualifiers and group stage then the policy seems to me to have been ‘a dollar short and a day late’.
I took PL at his word when he made it clear that Celtic didn’t rely on Rangers or the ‘Old Firm’ for financial survival but were intent on a stand-alone selling policy with suitable replacements being developed and, in turn, sold on for a profit and also that reaching the CL group stage was a key element.
We know it’s football and nothing can be guaranteed but the amount of duds we now so obviously have on our books and the fact that we scraped into Europe last year and were humiliated this year seems to indicate that things are a shambles.
This has nothing to do with RD as all this was happening long before he came but he’ll make a suitable patsy for failure way above his pay grade and I feel sorry about that because I do believe he has a lot to offer.
PL appears to be wanting to drag us back to baggage which I know the vast majority of our support has thrown away and if that is what he’s about then I honestly start to wonder what the hell is in the wind at Parkhead that we don’t yet know about.
Like it or not Lawwell is the man who has to give real answers to Celtic fans who are not as gullible or stupid as the SMSM journos he fed the succulent lamb to the other day. That isn’t singling him out – it’s merely asking him to do his job and explain the shift in direction.
And if Celtic’s required bottom-line can’t be maintained without an impoverished Rangers which is a shadow of its former self then what state is Celtic heading for.
All I can say is gawd help Scottish Football if Celtic can’t survive without turning the clock back which will lose more fans IMO than the additional bigots that want to scream abuse at the other side of the coin for 90 minutes without any interest in the football other than the final result.
I’m actually beginning to think that Topping was right about a ‘nuclear winter’ and Armageddon is no longer quite the joke I thought it was.
Having refused to have any part in Scottish football since the day that SEVCO played Brechin – realising then that the game was up, Lawwell’s pronouncements merely confirm that my judgement them was the correct one. I am, at present, an exCeltic supporter, with a Celtic leaning. I hope one day to be able to return to celtic park to watch the team play the sport of football. PL has ensured that while he is in post that day can never arrive. His strategy has been a moral, finacial and footballing failure.
What does surprise me about Pl’s statements are the timing and the going public. His previous “diplomatic” silence could always have been used as a fig leaf for the support that Celtic were really on the side of the angels but were wisely keeping their counsel ( I remember the Napoleon quotes on not disturbine an enemy when he is destroying himself) To date, only Goosy has managed to elicit some kind of excuse for Lawwell. I certainly admire his skill in finding such an “out” even if I regard his assessment as highly implausibl.
I would expect Auldheid, amongst others to raise some pertinent resolutions against PL at the AGM. The Celtic Board , amongst others in Scottish football appear incapable of understanding the anger of the fans nor of appreciating the gravity of what Rangers have done and what befell their club Lawwell’s credibility is shot now.
Whilst we can blame the SFA and SPFL hierarchy for their decisions to abandon sport, it is now clear that this was at the behest of the clubs (led by Celtic) and that the reason for the pay rises given to Regan and Doncaster was not for any performance but for services rendered in resurrecting the corpse of Rangers, and in being lightning conductors for the ire of the fans.
Given that paradigm, it seems clear that the SPFL are actively seeking not to have a sponsor to force the hands of any who would see justice done. If , and by hook or by crook, when Rangers(sic) return ( ha ha!) one can expect, as if by magic a sponsor to emerge.
What is actually needed is a complete boycott of all games in Scotland by all fans until those in high office go, and a new, clear set of fair and defined rules of football are introduced to ensure at least some semblance of integrity to the game.
At present the game as sport is dead, and as entertainment is dying.
Without fans football is nothing; but equally without rules football is nothing.
Whatever Scottish football fans are supporting at present, it certainly bears no relation to the sport of football as it ought to be played.
Okay Rhapsody in Blue at 11.22am, I’ll bite.
Which one are you – Peter Lawwell or Darryl Broadfoot?
😉
OT. Just heard that our old friend Hugh Keevins now has a weekly “column” for ClydeOne.com and ForthOne.com. Does this mean he is now an internet bampot, too? Welcome, Hugh.
scottc says:
September 1, 2014 at 9:03 am
18 0 Rate This
Ten years of attendances at Scottish football
2004-05 4,235,153
2005-06 4,369,486
2006-07 4,349,042
2007-08 4,092,929
2008-09 4,185,722
2009-10 3,818,925
2010-11 3,766,311
2011-12 3,771,021
2012-13 3,726,935
2013-14 3,729,024
data from http://stats.football365.com/
It’s quite clear that the reduction in attendance pre-dates Rangers demise so the money was going already, regardless of what PL says or thinks.
==============================
Overall attendance figures are somewhat misleading. Assuming Rangers’ large home crowds are skewing the figures in the sense that one team having large home crowds has no benefit on another teams income.
Its only worthwhile looking at attendances on a club per club basis IMO.
martin c says:
September 1, 2014 at 12:00 pm
What does the special conditions attached to TRFC trading page mean, clicked the link but no further forward?
//////////////////////////////////////////
Try this.
If it doesn’t work I’ll paste the full text, although it quite long.
http://www.londonstockexchange.com/prices-and-markets/prices-help/special-conditions.htm
RhapsodyinBlue
Here is the bit related to history that you appear not to get.
It’s not the argument about its longevity it’s the fact that there is a part of it since 1999 through to 2012 that you want to hold on to.
Titles and prize money were won by breaking the rules. No one buys the LNS no sporting advantage myth. On its own it’s a contrivance to ease the conscience of the Rangers support but we know it was misled to come to that contrivance.
What is of concern is not that titles should have been removed from Rangers history but that you want to hold on to them!
They are like the 20×20 painting on the great stair case wall of the family founder who was thought to have made money in cotton to then find out it was slavery. That portrait would be quietly moved into a cellar and forgotten about not flaunted in the face of all other clubs who played an honest game.
It gets worse, part of that history includes deceit to cover the deceit, which suggests that deceit is the modus operandi of the mind that supports Rangers and there is no evidence of honesty emerging to suggest that approach to playing the game has changed one iota.
It’s not that folk necessarily dislike or even hate Rangers, it’s that we do not trust them to play fair.
It’s as simple as that.
Sort that out by having a long honest look at yourselves and how your club behaved, give up what was won dishonestly and who helped covered up the dishonesty and it’s welcome back because decency will have been demonstrated.
rhapsodyinblue says:
September 1, 2014 at 11:22 am
1 11 Rate This
As a long suffering bluenose who winces at the damage caused by Murray, Whyte, and other savoury characters who have brought our club to its knees I wonder what the next move will be.
It goes without saying in our long history we, the supporters and the club, have never been more vulnerable.
History, sshh, I’ve mentioned that word and a few will be on to tell me we don’t have a history now.
Well, my position is this , we can argue the rights and wrong, but as long there is a Rangers in our hearts and minds, never mind the legalities Rangers are not dead and will never die. That as a fan is how it should be.
As for the resurgence of Rangers now, the jury is out, but the biggest casualty outside ourselves is our rivals. Now I am not blind enough to admit that one of the big plus points of these economic times is the number of young Scottish talent getting its chance (except of course at Ibrox, I could go on and on about this, but I wont).
But Celtic’s dramatic cost cutting has really taken me by surprise, never thought it would happen so soon. Almost to the point where they will win the SPL but with a struggle looking at their current displays.
Their support have a right to be angry considering the players that they have lost considering the money they have taken in. But in my judgement the management of the club is at fault, not the strategy, but the ability to spot players who are adequate replacements, that seems to have gone awry. That is not and never will be an exact science.
So what will Rangers return to the SPL, if we get there.
1. Badly needed sponsorship and better TV deals, I do not think that anyone can argue with that.
2. Rangers v Celtic , the adrenalin rush, that the missing fans miss, the majority on both sides and neutrals , not the vile hatred that comes with it
3. What it won’t guarantee is a higher standard of play, I admit that.
4. But it could if Rangers (in a repaired state) and Celtic would be serious about promoting youth rather than bringing in third rate foriegners.
5. Both clubs recognise our level in the current daft financial level in Football with EPL clubs squandering millions.
Lets hope the shares news today is some good news and not another financial thieve.
=============================================================
rhapsody, good to have you aboard.
My thoughts on each of your points
1. I don’t see how Rangers return to the top league affects Sponsorship tbh? But if it does, and we are saying only the 2 Glasgow teams are of any value to sponsors, then the real question is why are we not fixing that problem? As clearly this is not a worthwhile solution – there’s no point in continuing with a domestic game based on only 2 teams.
2. I doubt any neutrals actually care much, never mind the presence of adrenaline. Why would a fan of any other Scottish team actually care who wins a Celtic- Rangers Glasgow derby?
3. The standard of play in many of the teams on Scottish Football has improved greatly since Rangers liquidation, I can’t quite put my finger on why but I’m certain it has.
4. Well there is no reason both clubs couldn’t have pushed this harder over the last 20 years, so I fail to see why they would bother over the next 20 years? What has changed in this regard?
5. Evidence at the moment shows that The Rangers clearly don’t recognise their current level, hence the huge overspend to achieve so little so far. Placing the future of the new club at risk. As for Celtic well I think they realise they can only spend what they earn, and that European money should not be relied on for survival as its not guaranteed – but don’t think the EPL situation really has any bearing on either club tbh.
torrejohnbhoy(@johnbhoy1958) says:
September 1, 2014 at 10:09 am
8 0 Rate This
2 lots of 1.8 million shares dealt this morning at 24.75p.
Don`t know if sales or purchases,though
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
Mmmm……That’s interesting
Only the Spivs controlling RIFC would be interested in buying 3.6m shares at 24.75p just before an open offer at 20p
If they are genuine trades ,then added to the Stockbridge freebie shares it gives the Spivs 75% of RIFC
This would be sufficient to legally disapply pre-emption rights for minority shareholders , issue freebie shares to themselves in exchange for debt to themselves and therebye dilute the minority holding to under 10%
So if these are genuine sales from the minority to the Spivs then I would expect a selling rush by other minority holders this week 20p is better than 10p
If nothing happens then it is probably an unsuccessful attempt to panic the market using phoney but legal trades between Spivs
Constant Lurker and infrequent poster but…………
I turned my back on Scottish Football, both club and country, over two years ago, at the time of the disgraceful secret 5-way agreement.
As a Celtic fan since the mid sixties, this was not an easy decision but one I felt I morally had to make. I have on occasion since that time, questioned my decision to stay away from all professional football. However, after reading Peter Lawell’s recent comments, I am so glad I made that decision and stuck with it.
I have always had my doubts about the hampden hierarchy and their constant brownbroguerry, however I believed Lawell to be above this and it saddens me greatly to see him too, tread the path of the other unworthys.
What could have been a great chance for the rebirth of the game in this country, is now turning out to be a voluntary rush into the abyss.
Scottish Football has gone from a laughing stock to a very sick joke.
iceman63 says:
September 1, 2014 at 1:07 pm
……Given that paradigm, it seems clear that the SPFL are actively seeking not to have a sponsor to force the hands of any who would see justice done. If , and by hook or by crook, when Rangers(sic) return ( ha ha!) one can expect, as if by magic a sponsor to emerge…….
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
I have to admit to being completely flabbergasted that the SPFL are unable to get a sponsor of any description at all? Really? I mean really? …To be honest I have more than a suspicion you are correct….
Was interested to see when watching the Celtic game yesterday that Dundee have Hangar Records as their sponsors….and apparently Raith Rovers have the writer Val McDermid as their shirt sponsor……creative choices…
Despite this we are led to believe that the SPFL cannot even get a reduced sponsorship with some less august (stop laughing at the back) companies than the Bank Of Scotland or the Clydesdale Bank. No….they apparently cannot get anything at all……once again I say really?
The Cat NR1 says:
September 1, 2014 at 1:50 pm
3 0 Rate This
martin c says:
September 1, 2014 at 12:00 pm
What does the special conditions attached to TRFC trading page mean, clicked the link but no further forward?
//////////////////////////////////////////
Try this.
If it doesn’t work I’ll paste the full text, although it quite long.
http://www.londonstockexchange.com/prices-and-markets/prices-help/special-conditions.htm
thanks, but I still don’t understand. Maybe that’s the point!
Amazingly high standard of journalism in this headline from Glasgow Evening Times
“Prophet warning as fresh protests overshadow Rangers win
RANGERS came out on top in a thrilling contest with Queen of the South at the weekend to leapfrog their opponents in the SPFL Championship.”
Wonder which prophet they are talking about??
Matty Roth, thanks for the welcome
You disagree, no problem with that.
………………………………………………………….
Not Guilty so far, Auldheid.
Cheating, never accept that, morally reprehensible, yes, tax evasion is.
Amazon, Starbucks, Google, Facebook, Apple and E Bay all practised it.
I have news for you, Rangers did not invent it.
It was introduced through Murray’s Companies , as I am sure you know, and 5,000 companies used it blah blah, I could go on.
And Celtic used it for one player but I believe thought better of it.
Rangers obviously used this method to get better players, it was in practice, so why not.
Is it more morally reprehensible to you than Manchester United, millions in debt through their owners, spending millions more to win the EPL.
Or is it just because its Rangers? Don’t dismiss that statement, because for many it is.
‘It’s not that folk necessarily dislike or even hate Rangers, it’s that we do not trust them to play fair.’
Do you see the irony in your above statement.
Then again, just my opinion.
martin c says:
September 1, 2014 at 2:50 pm
The Cat NR1 says:
September 1, 2014 at 1:50 pm
3 0 Rate This
martin c says:
September 1, 2014 at 12:00 pm
What does the special conditions attached to TRFC trading page mean, clicked the link but no further forward?
//////////////////////////////////////////
Try this.
If it doesn’t work I’ll paste the full text, although it quite long.
http://www.londonstockexchange.com/prices-and-markets/prices-help/special-conditions.htm
thanks, but I still don’t understand. Maybe that’s the point!
///////////////////////////////////////////
It is just a statement/warning to potential traders that there is a potential future change in the amount/price of shares in circulation as a result of the rights issue, which has already been launched.
rhapsodyinblue says:
September 1, 2014 at 3:15 pm
——–
Not to butt in, but SDM’s deliberate policy of not complying with the rules of the SFA and SPL about disclosing ALL remuneration to players is the great element of sporting cheating. Cheating/not cheating the tax payer may or may not be a common business practice: cheating against the rules of our sport is the major offence for which his name and that of RFC will forever be held in contempt in Scottish Football.
And it is that offence, not any tax avoidance/ cheating that so enraged every other club.
And which any possible ruling that EBTs were a legitimate way to remunerate players cannot expunge.
rhapsodyinblue says:
September 1, 2014 at 3:15 pm
[] I expect Ryan Gosling will be quite embarrassed by that attempted whitewash, done in a style that fell out of use by Ranger’s apologists quite some time ago.
Big Pink says: September 1, 2014 at 12:22 pm
“…Sporting integrity appears to matter ONLY to the fans…”
=================================================================
BP, agree with you in everything except exonerating the fans.
Rangers fans knew Murray was all smoke and mirrors years ago – the guy that runs FF said so then and King and Joe Lewis didn’t keep quiet about their disappearing tens of millions. The fans were happy to accept a winning team.
Hearts fans knew that Robinson was spending far beyond the club’s means and that Romanov was taking them further into financial meltdown. Two cups? Thanks you very much.
Gretna fans and Miles Brookeson – the stuff that dreams are made of until the inevitable happens. Thanks for the ride Miles!
Dundee – £23m in debt, twice in admin? Thanks for signing Cannigia and Ravanelli (and Craig Burley?) and one Scottish Cup final where they were beaten by an EBT eleven.
Motherwell – well at least John Boyle did put his own money in and was prepared to write it off.
Dunfermline – completely blinded by Murray’s banker friend so due a lot of sympathy but if there was a case for proper fans’ vigilance this was it.
Celtic – you and a few others on here took a position in the Legia Warsaw situation that was at odds with most Celtic fans, I think. (Note: being a fan of applying rules without fear or favour, I thought that LW deserved to go out).
On the plus side are the laudable efforts made by fans of, for example, Stenhousemuir (CIC) and Foundation of Hearts to keep their clubs alive and activist shareholders at Celtic to pursue a living wage for club employees.
I agree with you regards comparing individual teams, Matty. The point I was making, though, was that the crowds and their money have not vanished; they have simply moved to another league. I have posted the individual team attendances before and average (reported) attendances are not widely different at most clubs than they were.
All very quiet?….
rhapsodyinblue says:
September 1, 2014 at 3:15 pm
“I have news for you, Rangers did not invent it.”
————————-
I think mitigation might be argued concerning Ranger’s approach however this appears the last in a long line of other tactics that have thus far proved ineffective.
At the risk of my being disingenuous, perhaps you could offer a view on how Rangers have approached the task of rehabilitating their club and brand. It seems to many including myself that an approach that has led to the recent announcements concerning the club/company’s financial predicament is extremely disappointing. This is the club with the second biggest revenue stream of all the teams in Scotland yet it is unable to sustain itself on a journey through the lower Scottish leagues. I don’t expect you to have all the answers and brevity precludes me putting all the questions but many I feel will be curious from a fan and supporter of Rangers perspective of how this can have come about.
Matty Roth says:
September 1, 2014 at 5:38 pm
1 0 Rate This
All very quiet?….
———-
It’s been a very confusing day, both here and on social media. The big share trade is completely bemusing. Quiet probably means a lot of folks are thinking — or just speechless! 🙂
jockybhoy says:
September 1, 2014 at 3:35 pm
Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar
——————————-
True ❗ But that doesn’t stop some cigar smokers preferring Cuban whilst some smokers are happier with roll-ups 😉
Rhapsody in blue
De Boer
Flo
And Moore
were paid by a scheme that was tax evasion not avoidance. Big difference and if that is what you justify the holding on to titles then you should voluntarily surrender the 1999 and 2003 titles strictly on those legal grounds.
As regards the rest sport requires that participants act morally to be a sport. It expects rules WILL be observed and not found clever and not so clever ways to be circumvented including telling lies.
Then there is the withholding of the very evidence that demonstrates tax evasion from the Commission set up to investigate if the rules were broken
That concealment meant the Commission was cheated out of arriving at a just result.
Check back previous blogs, look at the argument and tell me no cheating took place.
When you see terms such as fraudulent used in HMRC correspondence a bell should go off.
To be fair you probably never looked at the evidence for it proves what you dont want to know. More proof will emerge idc and it would help our game move forward in the full glare of the truth if it were not being hidden from you.
Your answer is why I personally will have to make a choice whether or not to stick to supporting a set up with a team in it that is seemingly incapable of understanding the concept of fair play.
I will not be alone.
jimmyczz says:
September 1, 2014 at 3:08 pm
13 0 Rate This
Amazingly high standard of journalism in this headline from Glasgow Evening Times
“Prophet warning as fresh protests overshadow Rangers win
RANGERS came out on top in a thrilling contest with Queen of the South at the weekend to leapfrog their opponents in the SPFL Championship.”
Wonder which prophet they are talking about??
———–
Haha, a brammer! I suppose one profit warning can lead to another prophet warning. How about: ‘The end is nigh!’, ‘The wages of sin is death!’ or ‘The Queen of the South shall rise up in the judgment with the men of this generation, and condemn them…’?
jimmyczz says:
September 1, 2014 at 3:08 pm
Amazingly high standard of journalism in this headline from Glasgow Evening Times
“Prophet warning as fresh protests overshadow Rangers win
RANGERS came out on top in a thrilling contest with Queen of the South at the weekend to leapfrog their opponents in the SPFL Championship.”
Wonder which prophet they are talking about??
=================================================
It has to be Neil Patey: The Blue prophet who appears to have difficulty in understanding the difference between profit and loss 😈
Just cannot figure Ally out at all,in the wake of the pre season friendly against Buckie he states that the performance of young Calum Gallagher is what he is looking for from the youngsters,first player out ,albeit on a loan ,yep young Gallagher.
To direct opponents too. It would be tragic if that came back to bite him.
Castofthousands
At the risk of my being disingenuous, perhaps you could offer a view on how Rangers have approached the task of rehabilitating their club and brand. It seems to many including myself that an approach that has led to the recent announcements concerning the club/company’s financial predicament is extremely disappointing. This is the club with the second biggest revenue stream of all the teams in Scotland yet it is unable to sustain itself on a journey through the lower Scottish leagues. I don’t expect you to have all the answers and brevity precludes me putting all the questions but many I feel will be curious from a fan and supporter of Rangers perspective of how this can have come about.
……………………………………
It has been a disaster since day one, no financial or football strategy, just a plethora of onerous contracts, ridiculous salaries, foolish signings and £70 million disappearing into the pockets of faceless investors, whose representatives lord it in the Ibrox boardroom in their white shiny shirts and brand new Rangers ties. In fact there has been so many of them in this period Slaters must have had an offer on.
How did we get there, something to do with David Murray, Craig Whyte and Charles Green with help from Duff and Phelps.
Solution – How do you remove hedge funds?
………………………..
Auldheid
You must be murder to play golf with, bet you claim the tie when your partner plays a shot before their turn.
Play by the rules, you must have been delighted when UEFA awarded Celtic the tie with Legia after being beaten 6 -1 in aggregate.
‘ Your answer is why I personally will have to make a choice whether or not to stick to supporting a set up with a team in it that is seemingly incapable of understanding the concept of fair play.
I will not be alone.’
Fair enough
rhapsodyinblue says:
September 1, 2014 at 7:55 pm
Play by the rules, you must have been delighted when UEFA awarded Celtic the tie with Legia after being beaten 6 -1 in aggregate.
_______________________________________________
I thought the rules were being adhered to with this decision. Without fear or favour.
Rhapsody
Aye. If I play fair I expect my opponent to do so too. Don’t you?
If I cheated you and you knew I had, how would you react? And I’m not talking a one off, I’m talking systemic since 1999.
I’d have preferred it if Legia had gone through but just as Malmo and Maribor overcame lies in 2011 to stop RFC access to CL money, football karma has a way of sorting things out.
As I said the truth has been kept from you so I understand your reluctance to accept my original point, but it’s the guys who kept truth from both of us I’m after not RFC.
They have damaged your club as much as mine. I’m only saying what needs to be done to create the conditions of friendly rivalry, not a continuation of misguided hatred that will have TV audiences lining up to see football in an area of pure hatred.
As I said. Check back previous blogs: An Honest Mistake and It Takes Two to Tangle. All evidence based.
WE are being lied to.
rhapsodyinblue says:
September 1, 2014 at 7:55 pm
‘You must be murder to play golf with, bet you claim the tie when your partner plays a shot before their turn.’
——————————————
I doubt Auldheid would do any more than chastise his playing partner for breaking the etiquette of golf, not the rules. I suppose, however, you’d tell us moving the ball six inches nearer the hole is alright, even if you do it for season upon season before being caught! As long as you have friends in place on the committee beforehand, of course. Because enforcing the rules is for the little people; like Spartans perhaps.
doubt Auldheid would do any more than chastise his playing partner for breaking the etiquette of golf, not the rules. I suppose, however, you’d tell us moving the ball six inches nearer the hole is alright, even if you do it for season upon season before being caught! As long as you have friends in place on the committee beforehand, of course. Because enforcing the rules is for the little people; like Spartans perhaps.
………………………..
Thanks for your friendly comments today.
You have judged my character without even knowing me.
That is enough for today, I might come back.
rhapsodyinblue says:
September 1, 2014 at 8:32 pm
‘You have judged my character without even knowing me.’
_______________________________
As you did Auldheid.
However, I did not judge your character, I judged your words, being all we have to go on. Which, of course, may have indicated a character that matches your club in having no respect for rules.
The writing style seems familiar . . . .
RIFC has never been in Administration.
TRFC has never been in Administration.
If Administrators are appointed soon they will tell you this if asked.
So how will that fit in with the SFA stance of 25 points.
sorry if this comment should be on the OCNC thread 😳
If it helps, before you leave…
Solution – How do you remove hedge funds?
Its not an answer your going to like, nor have much recent experience in, but have you tried paying them what they’re due?
Just a thought.
wildwood says:
September 1, 2014 at 9:01 pm
‘The writing style seems familiar . . . .’
In character with TRFC’s business plan, would you say?
Some info on the Charlie Telfer fee from Jim Spence
Jim Spence @bbcjimspence · 49m
Dundee Utd paid 40k for Polish keeper Michal Szromnik + paid Rangers half of fee + vat, offered for Charlie Telfer, So Utd have spent 100k.
If I’ve understood Jim Spence correctly, then United paid Rangers £50K + £10K VAT for Telfer
Someone bought 5%, this will allow them to buy another 5% at 20p a share.
If it is someone new then there will have to be an announcement because there is a new shareholder with over 3%. If it is an existing shareholder it really depends what their current holding is with regard any announcement. The Rangers website is not particularly good at updating these things.
In short someone has positioned themself to up their holding by 10% (the 5% today and the other 5% they can buy).
I think we may be back looking at that 75% figure again. Particularly with the new shares being issued prior to the AGM (I believe there was talk of October). The AGM if it is reached will be interesting with regard any special resolutions, I think pre-emption will be on the agenda again.
16 Sodium Atoms says:
September 1, 2014 at 9:38 pm
Not sure, but didn’t the announcement on Thursday say that the share offer was limited to shareholdings as at close of business that day? If so, wouldn’t any purchase today be ex share offer? If I am correct it makes any purchase today look even more strange.
AJ
I didn’t realise that. Thanks for the heads up.
If it is an existing shareholder would they be buying the right to buy more shares along with the shares themselves. If you see what I mean.
If not then the market for people having the ability to buy more and meet the target has just dropped.
RNS Number : 3031Q
Rangers Int. Football Club PLC
29 August 2014
29 August 2014
Rangers International Football Club plc
(“Rangers” the “Club” or the “Company”)
Open Offer of up to 19,864,918 New Ordinary Shares
Further to the announcements on 25 April and 6 August 2014, the Board of Rangers is pleased to announce an Open Offer of up to 19,864,918 new Ordinary Shares at 20p each (“New Ordinary Shares”) to raise up to GBP3.97m before expenses. Qualifying Shareholders are entitled to subscribe for New Ordinary Shares on the basis of 0.30185 New Ordinary Shares for each existing Ordinary Share in the Company held on the Record Date. In addition Qualifying Shareholders subscribing for their full entitlement under the Open Offer may also request additional New Ordinary Shares through the Excess Application Facility. The Open Offer is subject to an aggregate minimum subscription of 15,000,000 New Ordinary Shares.
The Issue Price of 20 pence per New Ordinary Share represents a discount of approximately 21.6 per cent. to the closing middle market price of 25.5 pence for each existing Ordinary Share in the Company on 28 August 2014.
Private Shareholders whose existing ordinary shares are held by a nominee company should get in touch with their custodian to ensure that they are given the opportunity to participate in the Open Offer. A circular (the “Circular”) setting out details of and the terms relating to the Open Offer will be posted today and made available on the Company’s website, http://www.rangersinternationalfootballclub.com
For further information please contact:
Rangers International Football Club plc
Graham Wallace/ Paul Tyrell Tel: 0141 580 8647
Daniel Stewart & Company plc Tel: 020 7776 6550
Paul Shackleton / David Coffman
Newgate Threadneedle Tel: 020 7148 6143
Roddy Watt / John Coles
EXPECTED TIMETABLE OF PRINCIPAL EVENTS
Record Date for entitlement to participate in the Open Offer
5.00 p.m. on 28 August 2014
Announcement of the Open Offer and dispatch of the Circular and, to certain Qualifying Non-CREST Shareholders, the Application Form
29 August 2014
Expected ex-entitlement date for the Open Offer
8.00 a.m. on 29 August 2014
Open Offer Entitlements credited to CREST stock accounts of Qualifying CREST Shareholders
as soon as practicable after 8.00 a.m. on 1 September 2014
Recommended latest time and date for requesting withdrawal of Open Offer Entitlements from CREST
4.30 p.m. on 8 September 2014
Latest time for depositing Open Offer Entitlements into CREST
3.00 p.m. on 9 September August 2014
Latest time and date for splitting Application Forms (to satisfy bona fide market claims only)
3.00 p.m. on 10 September 2014
Latest time and date for receipt of completed Application Forms and payment in full under the Open Offer or settlement of relevant CREST instruction (as appropriate)
11.00 a.m. on 11 September 2014
Allotment of New Ordinary Shares
8.00 a.m. on 12 September 2014
Admission of the New Ordinary Shares to trading on AIM
8.00 a.m. on 18 September 2014
New Ordinary Shares in uncertificated form expected to be credited to accounts in CREST (uncertificated holders only)
as soon as practicable after 8.00 a.m. on 18 September 2014
Expected date of dispatch of definitive share certificates for the New Ordinary Shares in certificated form (certificated holders only)
by 29 September 2014
OPEN OFFER STATISTICS
Issue Price per New Ordinary Share
20 pence
Closing Price per Existing Ordinary Share on the Latest Practicable Date
25.5 pence
Discount to Closing Price of an Existing Ordinary Share on the Latest Practicable Date
21.6 per cent.
Open Offer Entitlement of Qualifying Shareholders under the Open Offer
0.30185 of an Open Offer Share for every Existing Ordinary Share
Number of Existing Ordinary Shares
65,810,341
Maximum number of New Ordinary Shares to be issued by the Company pursuant to the Open Offer
19,864,918
Maximum gross proceeds of the Open Offer (assuming full subscription)
£3.97million
Number of Ordinary Shares in issue immediately following Admission (assuming full subscription)
85,675,259
New Ordinary Shares as a percentage of the Enlarged Share Capital (assuming full subscription)
23.2 per cent.
Estimated net cash proceeds of the Open Offer (assuming full subscription)
£3.6 million
ISIN Code for Open Offer entitlements
GB00BQ15SB20
ISIN Code for Excess Open Offer Entitlements
GB00BQ15SC37
Open Offer of up to 19,864,918 New Ordinary Shares
Introduction
The Company announces that it will raise up to £4 million (before fees and expenses) through an Open Offer by way of the issue of New Ordinary Shares at an Issue Price of 20 pence per New Ordinary Share. The Issue Price represents an approximate 21.6 per cent. discount to the Closing Price of 25.5 pence per existing Ordinary Share on the Latest Practicable Date. Application will be made to the London Stock Exchange for the New Ordinary Shares to be admitted to trading on AIM. It is expected that Admission will occur on 18 September 2014.
The funding will be used to allow the Company to start implementing the strategy to re-build and re-establish Rangers as a stable, sustainable and successful business to deliver both shareholder value and footballing success. The proposals allow both existing private shareholders and institutional investors to participate in the fund raising to raise equity for the 2014/15 football season in a cost effective manner.
Reasons for the Open Offer
At the AGM in December 2013 Graham Wallace announced that the Board would undertake a strategic review of the Company. A summary of the Business Review was published on 25 April 2014. The Business Review highlighted issues relating to the Club’s financial position and outlined steps the Board intended to take in the following months to improve the financial position of the Club.
On 23 February 2014, the Company announced that it had entered into two secured short term credit facilities for an aggregate amount of up to £1.5 million. These credit facilities are due for repayment on 1 September 2014 and the Board is in discussions with the providers in relation to their repayment, part of which will come from the proceeds of the Open Offer.
The Board has developed and approved a strategic plan as part of the Business Review to re-build and re-establish the Club, to return it to the top of the domestic game within three seasons, and to thereafter be competitive in UEFA competition. This will require continued investment in the playing squad over the next three years and beyond to drive on-field success.
In order to achieve this, the Company will need to raise capital over the next three years. It expects to raise between £20 million and £30 million. The Open Offer is an important planned part of this fund raising strategy and will provide the Club with working capital and part of the repayment to George Letham and Alexander Easdale of the £1.5 million drawn down from the credit facilities provided by them to the Company
The Board acknowledges the importance of supporters as Shareholders as well as its institutional investors; the Open Offer gives smaller Shareholders the opportunity to participate in the fund raising.
Accordingly, the Directors believe that an Open Offer of New Ordinary Shares is in the best interests of the Company and Shareholders as the funds raised should enable the Company to progress the issues identified in the Business Review.
Current trading and outlook
Having won the title to Scottish Professional Football League One at the end of the 2013/14 football season, the Club is now, for the 2014/15 football season, competing in the Scottish Championship, the second tier of the Scottish Professional Football League. The Club has increased most season ticket and matchday prices for the 2014/15 season by between 15 per cent. and 25 per cent. and has sold approximately 23,000 season tickets.
If the Club continues to progress to the top flight of Scottish football it will have the opportunity to benefit from increased attendances, increased ticket prices, access to prize monies from European competition and new commercial partnerships.
Following the operational and organisational changes identified in the Business Review, cost management initiatives have been implemented resulting in business practices being tightened and discretionary expenditure minimised.
The cash position today requires careful monitoring but has improved since the beginning of April 2014 with the sale of season tickets, improved commercial relationships, and cost management initiatives identified by the Business Review. The Company had an unaudited cash balance of £4.258 million at 30 June 2014. Included in this unaudited cash balance is £2.72 million relating to Rangers Retail Limited, which is not immediately available as working capital to the Group as a whole. Trading since the announcement of the interim results for the six months ended 31 December 2013 has been in line with expectations.
Assuming full subscription, the Company will require additional external funding in the latter half of the current financial year in order to meet working capital requirements as a result of the cyclical nature of its business. At the minimum level of subscription additional working capital will be required towards the end of the current calendar year. This funding, could be sourced from lines of credit, other forms of short term finance or as a component of a further equity raise, in line with the strategy identified in the Business Review to re-build and re-establish Rangers as a stable, sustainable and successful business. There can be no certainty that such funding will be available on commercial terms or at all. Failure to secure such funding would be damaging to the business and may impair the value of the Ordinary Shares. The Open Offer is not underwritten. There can be no certainty as to the aggregate level of subscription for New Ordinary Shares. If the aggregate level of subscription is less than 15,000,000 New Ordinary Shares the Open Offer will not proceed and subscription monies will be returned to applicants. Should this occur, the Company will be unable to pay its creditors as they fall due and the future of the Company will be uncertain; The Directors will immediately have to seek emergency financing which may or may not be available.
The Directors intend that further funding will be raised to continue to implement the strategy identified in the Business Review to re-build and re-establish Rangers as a stable, sustainable and successful business. As such the Directors will seek annual authorities from Shareholders at the Annual General Meeting of the Company in the Autumn of 2014 as are suitable for an AIM listed company in order to issue new Ordinary Shares and for statutory pre-emption rights to be disapplied.
Information on the Open Offer
Fundraising Structure
The Directors have given careful consideration as to the structure of the proposed fundraising and have concluded that the Open Offer is the most suitable option available to the Company and its Shareholders at this time having regard to the importance of pre-emption rights to Shareholders, the composition of the Company’s register of members and the Company’s current share price. Subject to applications being received for an aggregate subscription of at least 15,000,000 New Ordinary Shares, up to 19,864,918 New Ordinary Shares will be issued through the Open Offer at 20 pence per New Ordinary Share to raise gross proceeds of up to £4 million.
Principal terms of the Open Offer
The allotment of New Ordinary Shares by way of the Open Offer shall take place pursuant to the shareholder authorities granted at the Company’s Annual General Meeting on 18 December 2013. As such the Open Offer is being conducted in accordance with statutory pre-emption provisions as set out in section 561 of the Act.
Pursuant to the Open Offer, Qualifying Shareholders will be given the opportunity to subscribe for 0.30185 of an Open Offer Share for every Existing Ordinary Share held on the Record Date at the Issue Price of 20 pence.
The Open Offer provides an opportunity for all Qualifying Shareholders to participate in the fundraising pro rata to their current holdings of Existing Ordinary Shares with the option for subscribing for more pursuant to the Excess Application Facility subject to scaling down by the Company in the event that the Open Offer becomes oversubscribed. Any fractional entitlements to Open Offer Shares shall be aggregated and made available as part of the Excess Application Facility.
The Excess Application Facility being made available as part of the Open Offer enables Shareholders who so wish to apply for Open Offer Shares in excess of their Open Offer Entitlement in the event that certain other Shareholders do not wish to take up their Open Offer Entitlements and with respect to any fractional entitlements.
It should be noted that the Open Offer is not a rights issue. The Application Form is not a document of title and cannot be traded, The Open Offer is limited to a maximum aggregate amount of not more than €5 million, in order to take advantage of the exemption of the Prospectus Directive 2003/71/EC which avoids the Company incurring the cost of publishing a prospectus.
If a Qualifying Shareholder does not take up any of his or her Open Offer Entitlement, his or her proportionate ownership and voting rights in the Company will be diluted by 23.2 per cent. by the issue of the New Ordinary Shares. The Issue Price of 20 pence represents a 21.6 per cent. discount to the Closing Price of 25.5 pence per Ordinary Share on the Latest Practicable Date.
The latest date and time for acceptance and payment in full under the Open Offer is 11.00 a.m. on 12 September 2014. Full details of the terms and conditions of the Open Offer and how to apply are set out in Part II of the Circular.
The Open Offer Shares will when issued be credited as fully paid and will rank equally in all respects with the Existing Ordinary Shares, including the right to receive all dividends and other distributions declared, made or paid in respect of the Ordinary Shares.
Application procedure under the Open Offer
The procedure for application and payment is set out in the Circular and, where relevant, on the Application Form which will be dispatched to Qualifying Shareholders today.
Application for Admission
Application will be made to the London Stock Exchange for the New Ordinary Shares to be admitted to trading on AIM. It is expected that Admission will occur and trading in the New Ordinary Shares will commence at 8.00 a.m. on 18 September 2014. No temporary documents of title will be issued.
The New Ordinary Shares will, following Admission, rank pari passu in all respects with the Existing Ordinary Shares in issue at the date of this announcement and will carry the right to receive all dividends and distributions declared, made or paid on or in respect of the Ordinary Shares after Admission.
Important notice
Qualifying Shareholders should note that the Open Offer is not a rights issue. Qualifying Shareholders should be aware that in the Open Offer, unlike with a rights issue, any Open Offer Shares not applied for by Qualifying Shareholders under their Open Offer Entitlements will not be sold in the market on behalf of, or otherwise placed for the benefit of those Qualifying Shareholders who did not apply for their Open Offer Entitlements but will be made available to Shareholders as part of the Excess Application Facility.
Qualifying Shareholders are being invited to participate in the Open Offer and (subject to certain exceptions) will have received an Application Form with the Circular.
In issuing the Circular and structuring the Open Offer in this manner, the Company is relying on the exemption from issuing a prospectus in section 85(5) and paragraph 9 of Schedule 11A of FSMA.
Any Qualifying Shareholder who has sold or transferred all or part of his registered holding(s) of Existing Ordinary Shares prior to the date on which the shares are marked ‘ex-entitlement’ is advised to consult his stockbroker, bank or other agent through or to whom the sale or transfer was effected as soon as possible since the invitation to apply for Open Offer Shares under the Open Offer may be a benefit which may be claimed from him by the purchasers under the rules of the London Stock Exchange.
Overseas Shareholders
The attention of Qualifying Shareholders who have registered addresses outside the United Kingdom, or who are citizens or residents of countries other than the United Kingdom, or who are holding Ordinary Shares for the benefit of such persons (including, without limitation, subject to certain exceptions, custodians, nominees, trustees and agents), or who have a contractual or other legal obligation to forward the Circular or (if applicable) an Application Form to such persons, is drawn to the information which appears in paragraph 6 of Part II of the Circular.
In particular, Qualifying Shareholders who have registered addresses in or who are resident in, or who are citizens of, countries other than the UK (including, without limitation, the United States or any other Restricted Jurisdiction) should consult their professional advisers as to whether they require any governmental or other consents or need to observe any other formalities to enable them to take up their Open Offer Entitlements.
Taxation
Shareholders who are in any doubt as to their tax position, or who are subject to tax in a jurisdiction other than the UK should consult an appropriate professional adviser immediately.
Further Information
Your attention is drawn to the further information set out in Parts II to V of the Circular. Shareholders should read the whole of the Circular and not rely solely on the information set out in this announcement. In particular, you should consider the risk factors set out in Part III of the Circular.
Intentions of the Directors in relation to the Open Offer
The Directors intend to take up their Open Offer Entitlements in full and subscribe for an aggregate of 194,131 Open Offer Shares as set out below:
Directors
Number of Open Offer Shares
David Somers
14,186
Norman Crighton
18,111
James Easdale
107,803
Philip Nash
54,031
The Directors, in aggregate together with their immediate families or persons connected with them (within the meaning of Section 252 of the Act) hold 643,143 Existing Ordinary Shares, representing approximately 1.0 per cent. of the Existing Ordinary Shares in issue at the Latest Practicable Date.
An announcement will be released to the market in due course notifying the market of the acceptance by Directors and their families or connected persons of any Open Offer Entitlements and Excess Open Offer Entitlements and the effect on their subsequent shareholdings in the Company.
Recommendation
The board of directors of the Company has resolved that the Open Offer is in the best interest of
Shareholders as a whole. The Directors are not making a recommendation to Qualifying Shareholders as to whether they should take up their entitlement under the Open Offer, such decision will depend on each Qualifying Shareholder’s individual circumstance. Accordingly, the Board of Directors of the Company strongly recommends that Qualifying Shareholders take their own independent financial advice before making a decision as to whether or not to take up their entitlement under the Open Offer. The Directors intend to take up their aggregate maximum entitlement of 194,131 New Ordinary Shares under the Open Offer in respect of a total of 643,143 Ordinary Shares held by them representing 1.0 per cent of the existing issued share capital of the Company.
DEFINITIONS
The following definitions apply throughout this announcement unless the context requires otherwise:
“Act”
the Companies Act 2006;
“Admission”
the admission of the New Ordinary Shares to trading on AIM and such admission becoming effective in accordance with the AIM Rules;
“AIM”
the AIM market operated by the London Stock Exchange;
“AIM Rules”
the AIM Rules for Companies published by the London Stock Exchange;
“Application Form”
the application form accompanying the Circular to be used by Qualifying Non-CREST Shareholders in connection with the Open Offer;
“Business Day”
any day on which banks are generally open in England and Wales for the transaction of business, other than a Saturday, Sunday or public holiday;
“Business Review”
means the business review and strategic plan update published by the Company on 25 April 2014;
“certificated” or “in certificated form”
the description of a share or other security which is not in uncertificated form (that is not in CREST);
“Closing Price”
the closing middle market quotation of an Ordinary Share as derived from the AIM Appendix to the Daily Official list of the London Stock Exchange;
“Club”
Rangers Football Club;
“Company” or “Rangers”
Rangers International Football Club plc;
“CREST”
the relevant system (as defined in the CREST Regulations) in respect of which Euroclear is the Operator (as defined in the CREST Regulations);
“CREST Manual
the compendium of documents entitled “CREST Manual” issued by Euroclear from time to time and comprising the CREST Reference Manual, the CREST Central Counterparty Service Manual, the CREST International Manual, the CREST Rules (including CREST Rule 8), the CCSS Operating Manual and the CREST Glossary of Terms;
“CREST member”
a person who has been admitted by Euroclear as a system member (as defined in the CREST Regulations);
“CREST participant”
a person who is, in relation to CREST, a system participant (as defined in the CREST Regulations);
“CREST Regulations”
the Uncertificated Securities Regulations 2001 (SI 2001/3755), as amended from time to time;
“CREST sponsor”
a CREST participant admitted to CREST as a CREST sponsor; “CREST sponsored member” a CREST member admitted to CREST as a sponsored member;
“Daniel Stewart”
Daniel Stewart & Company plc;
“Directors” or “Board”
the existing directors of the Company
“Enlarged Share Capital”
the 85,675,259 Ordinary Shares in issue immediately following Admission (on the basis that the Open Offer Shares are allotted but assuming no other Ordinary Shares are issued between the date of the Circular and Admission);
“Excess Application Facility”
the terms and conditions of the Open Offer pursuant to which Qualifying Shareholders may apply for additional Offer Shares in excess of their Open Offer Entitlement in accordance with the terms and conditions of the Open Offer;
“Excess Open Offer Entitlements”
in respect of each Qualifying Shareholder, the entitlement to apply (in addition to his Open Offer Entitlement) for Excess Offer Shares pursuant to the Excess Application Facility which is conditional upon such Qualifying Shareholder taking up his Open Offer Entitlement in full;
“Excess Shares”
Open Offer Shares applied for by Qualifying Shareholders under the Excess Application Facility;
“Euroclear”
Euroclear UK & Ireland Limited;
“Excluded Overseas Shareholders”
other than as agreed by the Company and Daniel Stewart or as permitted by applicable law, Shareholders who are located or have registered addresses in a Restricted Jurisdiction or any other jurisdiction where to do so might constitute a violation of local securities laws or regulations;
“Existing Ordinary Shares”
the 65,810,341 Ordinary Shares in issue at the date of the Circular;
“FIFA”
Federation Internationale de Football Association, the governing body of worldwide football;
“Group”
the Company and its subsidiaries and subsidiary undertakings;
“HMRC”
Her Majesty’s Revenue & Customs;
“Issue Price”
20 pence per New Ordinary Share;
“Latest Practicable Date”
means 28 August 2014 being the latest practicable date prior to the publication of the Circular;
“London Stock Exchange”
London Stock Exchange plc;
“Money Laundering Regulations”
Money Laundering Regulations 2007 (as amended and
supplemented);
“New Ordinary Shares”
up to 19,864,918 new Ordinary Shares to be issued by the Company pursuant to the Open Offer;
“Open Offer”
the conditional invitation by the Company to Qualifying
Shareholders to apply to subscribe for Open Offer Shares at the Issue Price on the terms and subject to the conditions set out in the Circular and in the case of the Qualifying Non-CREST Shareholders only, the Application Form;
“Open Offer Agreement”
the agreement dated 10 July 2014 between the Company and Daniel Stewart relating to the Open Offer, details of which are set out in paragraph 5 of Part V of the Circular;
“Open Offer Entitlement”
the Open Offer Shares which a Qualifying Shareholder is entitled to subscribe for under the Open Offer calculated on the basis of 0.30185 of an Open Offer Share for every Existing Ordinary Share held by that Qualifying Shareholder as at the Record Date;
“Open Offer Shares”
the 19,864,918 New Ordinary Shares to be offered to Qualifying Shareholders under the Open Offer;
“Ordinary Shares”
ordinary shares of £0.01 each in the share capital of the Company;
“Overseas Shareholders”
Shareholders with registered addresses outside the UK or who are citizens of, incorporated in, registered in or otherwise resident in, countries outside the UK;
“Participant ID”
the identification code or membership number used in CREST to identify a particular CREST member or other CREST participant;
“Prospectus Directive”
Directive 2001/34 of the European Parliament on the prospectus to be published when securities are offered to the public or admitted to trading and as amended by Directive 2003/71/EC and 2010/73/EU;
“Qualifying CREST Shareholders”
Qualifying Shareholders whose Existing Ordinary Shares on the register of members of the Company on the Record Date are held in certificated form;
“Qualifying Non-CREST Shareholders”
Qualifying Shareholders whose Existing Ordinary Shares on the register of members of the Company on the Record Date are in uncertificated form;
“Qualifying Shareholders”
holders of Existing Ordinary Shares on the register of members of the Company at the Record Date with the exception (subject to certain exceptions) of Excluded Overseas Shareholders;
“Record Date”
5.00 p.m. on 28 August 2014;
“Registrars” or “Receiving Agent”
Capita Registrars Limited;
“Regulatory Information Service”
the regulatory information services approved by the London Stock Exchange for the distribution of AIM announcements;
“Restricted Jurisdictions”
each of Australia, New Zealand, Canada, Japan, the Republic of Ireland, the Republic of South Africa and the United States;
“Scottish Championship”
the second tier of the Scottish Professional Football League established in July 2013;
“Scottish Professional Football League”
the football league system in Scotland as established with effect from the 2013/2014 football season;
“Securities Act”
the US Securities Act of 1933, as amended;
“SFA”
Scottish Football Association, the governing body of Scottish football;
“Shareholders”
the holders of Ordinary Shares from time to time;
“UEFA”
Union des Associations Europeenes de Football, the governing body of European football;
“uncertificated”
recorded on a register of securities maintained by Euroclear in accordance with the CREST Regulations as being in uncertificated form in CREST and title to which, by virtue of the CREST Regulations, may be transferred by means of CREST;
“United Kingdom” or “UK”
the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland;
“United States”,
“UnitedAmerica” or “US”
the United States of America, its territories and possessions, any state of the United States of America and the District of Columbia and all areas subject to its jurisdiction;
“USE”
unmatched stock event.
“£” or “Sterling” or “pence”
the lawful currency from time to time of the United Kingdom; and
“€”
Euros, the lawful currency of the 18 member states of the European Union who have entered into an Economic and Monetary Union.
This information is provided by RNS
The company news service from the London Stock Exchange
END
IOEPPMJTMBJTTTI
16 Sodium Atoms says:
September 1, 2014 at 9:49 pm
0
0
Rate This
AJ
I didn’t realise that. Thanks for the heads up.
If it is an existing shareholder would they be buying the right to buy more shares along with the shares themselves. If you see what I mean.
If not then the market for people having the ability to buy more and meet the target has just dropped.
///////////////////////////////////
Allyjambo beat me to it. Check out the first date.
http://www.londonstockexchange.com/exchange/news/market-news/market-news-detail.html?announcementId=12067610
It seems a really odd trade to make, as an existing shareholder could buy at 20p through the rights issue. There should be an announcement on AIM, which will clear it up. Either the seller or purchaser or both will cross a reporting threshold for declaration of interest in shares.
16 Sodium Atoms says: September 1, 2014 at 9:38 pm
———————–
If the trades we saw today were the sale and the purchase of the same lot of 1.8M shares, then it is possible that there will be no notification to AIM.
1.8M equates to 2.74% of the issued shares.
rhapsodyinblue says:
September 1, 2014 at 8:32 pm
Well that did not last long.
We 9or at least I) are trying to help you guys understand why I/we are unhappy about playing any version of RFC at sport.
Is there such a cultural divide that you cannot accept that others from a different background might actually be trying to achieve something to benefit ALL of us?
I hope you come back and read the evidence at
http://www.scribd.com/doc/237222398/The-Wee-Tax-case-Evidence
Page seven is where “fraudulent” appears although deliberate negligence was enough for HMRC to pursue outside the normal time frame.
This is not about sporting integrity v commercialism. Its about right and wrong.
easyJambo says:
September 1, 2014 at 10:01 pm
0
0
Rate This
16 Sodium Atoms says: September 1, 2014 at 9:38 pm
———————–
If the trades we saw today were the sale and the purchase of the same lot of 1.8M shares, then it is possible that there will be no notification to AIM.
1.8M equates to 2.74% of the issued shares.
/////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Good point. I hadn’t thought that it could be the same tranche twice.
The seller may have gone under a reporting threshold, although the four day period for reporting it would eat into the offer period. It’s almost aa if someone had deliberately set out to create the uncertainty in order to sabotage the rights issue. Another Stockbridge type intervention perchance?
SA,
As I said, not completely sure that it is the case, although there will definitely be a time and date after which purchases will not carry the right to the share offer. It would make no difference that they are an existing shareholder, as only their holding at the cut-off date will count. I read a post elsewhere where it was suggested that the two amounts of 1.8m shares might in fact be both halves of the one transaction, meaning that only 1.8m shares have been bought/sold.
What it all means is anyone’s guess.
Just noticed Easy has posted re 1.8m perhaps being the one trade already.
easyJambo says:
September 1, 2014 at 10:01 pm
Again thanks for that, as I understand it the trades were a bit apart, would that normally be the case if it related to the same transaction i.e. there would be two announcements rather than one.
I ask because that really is a bit of a mystery to me. I have just taken comments from others that there were about 5% of the shares traded, clearly not if it was just the same shares traded but noted twice.
What are Celtic all about ,Scepovic ,excuse the spelling ,has done a u turn and has now signed for Celtic ,the Celtic fans will be happy with this guy ,couldnt agree a deal with Getafe yesterday and turns back up at Celtics door a day later,hope for his sake he is a goal scorer.
Forgive my ignorance but can someone show me where it says the numbers relate to how many shares someone held at that time.
As I said in an earlier post that would reduce the potential market. For every share sold neither the old or the new owner of that share would be able to take up the offer.
Not questioning what you guys are saying, just trying to learn a bit.
Cluster One says:
September 1, 2014 at 9:04 pm
‘..RIFC has never been in Administration.
TRFC has never been in Administration.
If Administrators are appointed soon they will tell you this if asked.
So how will that fit in with the SFA stance of 25 points.’
———
Our Football Authorities made an absolute bollocks of things in their fear of the consequences of dealing properly with the new club incorporated by CG.
They are now likely to be in an impossible situation, if ( or, perhaps, when)TRFC goes bust.
Even the most brassnecked might hesitate for a moment at the idea of treating a TRFC insolvency event as a ‘first’ insolvency, when for two years the Authorities have insisted that they are a continuation of RFC ( and not even, I think, a continuation of ‘a holding company’- because there was no ‘holding company’, just RFC.)
But, I fear, their psychological inability to grasp the central fact of modern football- that RFC died as a direct result of the deeds of a cheating knight-of-the-realm ( God Almighty, that there should be such ‘knights’!) and/or their fear of the consequences, the full and proper consequences, of accepting that reality, will again blind them to any notion of integrity.
They will find some way of treating any insolvency event as a ‘first’ insolvency event, and, if need be, even take further measures to ensure CG’s new club win the Championship or in other ways get into the top division. There is no way that a 25 point penalty would ever be imposed, if that meant TRFC having to languish for at least another season in the lower division.
In my opinion, based on my very low opinion of the Football authorities, based on their past behaviour.
An opinion shared, I think, by many.
16 Sodium Atoms says: September 1, 2014 at 10:21 pm
————————
The RIFC site lists the major shareholders (>3%)
http://www.rangersinternationalfootballclub.com/share-information
Shareholder No of Ordinary Shares held % of issued share capital
Laxey Partners Ltd 8,292,957 12.6%
Artemis Investment Management LLP 5,479,000 8.33%
River and Mercantile Asset Management LLP 4,795,500 7.29%
Hargreave Hale Limited 4,601,688 6.99%
Blue Pitch Holding* 4,000,000 6.08%
Miton Capital Partners 3,143,857 4.78%
Mike Ashley 3,000,000 4.56%
Alexander Easdale* 2,942,957 4.47%
Margarita Funds Holding Trust* 2,600,000 3.95%
Beyond that, all changes to the above shareholdings must be advised to AIM if they pass each 1% up or down, or drop below the 3% reporting threshold.
All director holdings must be disclosed in the Accounts and all trades by directors must be advised to AIM.
—————-
Today’s two trades of 1.8M were just 5 seconds apart, so are almost certainly linked.
Thanks for that.
So my understanding, if it is a new buyer then it won’t hit the 3% and does not have to be announced. If it is one of the people listed above, or a director, then there will have to be an announcement.
easyJambo says:
September 1, 2014 at 10:01 pm
‘..———————–
If the trades we saw today were the sale and the purchase of the same lot of 1.8M shares, then it is possible that there will be no notification to AIM.’
——
What I find puzzling is why it is not clear that one entry is a ‘sale’ and the other a ‘buy’, although the fact that they both occurred at precisely the same time would suggest that. Other entries are shown as ‘buy’ or ‘sale’.
Was this , as someone mentioned earlier in the day, only a wee glitch in the system, do you think? Or COULD it have been an attempt to circumvent the need for a regulatory statement on the 3% issue?
( I do try not to be suspicious, but the more we read of how these things work, the more we kick ourselves for our erstwhile naivety and innocent trustfulness! 😀
16 Sodium Atoms says:
September 1, 2014 at 10:21 pm
0
0
Rate This
Forgive my ignorance but can someone show me where it says the numbers relate to how many shares someone held at that time.
As I said in an earlier post that would reduce the potential market. For every share sold neither the old or the new owner of that share would be able to take up the offer.
Not questioning what you guys are saying, just trying to learn a bit.
///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Indeed, neither the seller nor the buyer must be interested in the rights issue.
Which then begs the question what is their motivation, given the potential imminent dilution of their newly acquired holding and a certain diminution in value.
16 Sodium Atoms says: September 1, 2014 at 10:51 pm
——————-
You’ve got it.
If the two trades were both sales or both purchases by the same person, then again it would be advised to AIM as the 3.6M shares involved would represent 5.48%.
John Clark says:
September 1, 2014 at 10:31 pm
Our Football Authorities made an absolute bollocks of things in their fear of the consequences
————–
What could they do if administrators, if asked by someone is this the first time this company/club has gone into administration.
I know what you are saying john, they will come up with it was a miss quote or a play on words.
You are correct they will do everything they can and they will to make sure no 25 point penalty is applied
Cluster One says:
September 1, 2014 at 10:55 pm
‘..You are correct they will do everything they can and they will to make sure no 25 point penalty is applied.’
——–
I should have said ‘they will IF they think they can get away with it’!
The rest of us must be ready to pile on the pressure on our club Chairmen, CEOs, Owners, as we did before, to ensure that wiser counsels prevail.
No one in the business of football in Scotland can be remotely happy at the gangrene in the sporting body. Gangrene ( God, how my old man blessed Alexander Fleming) that could so easily and relatively painlessly have been avoided by prompt, early, and clinically justified but, perhaps, compassionate, or at least regretful,amputation of the affected limb.
The Cat NR1 says:
September 1, 2014 at 10:55 pm
0 0 Rate This
16 Sodium Atoms says:
September 1, 2014 at 10:21 pm
0
0
Rate This
Forgive my ignorance but can someone show me where it says the numbers relate to how many shares someone held at that time.
As I said in an earlier post that would reduce the potential market. For every share sold neither the old or the new owner of that share would be able to take up the offer.
Not questioning what you guys are saying, just trying to learn a bit.
///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Indeed, neither the seller nor the buyer must be interested in the rights issue.
Which then begs the question what is their motivation, given the potential imminent dilution of their newly acquired holding and a certain diminution in value.
=====================
It seems logical to assume (from the timing) that both the buyer and seller ARE very interested in the right issue.
Presumably the seller had no intention of taking up their rights and no desire to lose money by having their shareholding diluted, making a quick sale preferable.
And I’d guess the buyer might be an existing shareholder (or consortium of shareholders) who plans to take up as many shares as possible in the rights issue with the aim of gaining control and a few extra percent now helps this along the way.
In fact, if you are a spiv looking to gain control and other investors are clearly not interested in investing more cash then the right issue is a perfect way to make it desirable for them to sell to you – because their alternative is to see their shares devalued even further during the issue.
John Clark says:
September 1, 2014 at 10:31 pm
It will be 15 points and the history will become that family portrait I referred to earlier consigned to the dunny of convenience.
Add in confession, contrition and repentance and its game on.
Matty Roth says:
September 1, 2014 at 11:17 pm
0
0
Rate This
The Cat NR1 says:
September 1, 2014 at 10:55 pm
0 0 Rate This
16 Sodium Atoms says:
September 1, 2014 at 10:21 pm
0
0
Rate This
Forgive my ignorance but can someone show me where it says the numbers relate to how many shares someone held at that time.
As I said in an earlier post that would reduce the potential market. For every share sold neither the old or the new owner of that share would be able to take up the offer.
Not questioning what you guys are saying, just trying to learn a bit.
///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Indeed, neither the seller nor the buyer must be interested in the rights issue.
Which then begs the question what is their motivation, given the potential imminent dilution of their newly acquired holding and a certain diminution in value.
=====================
It seems logical to assume (from the timing) that both the buyer and seller ARE very interested in the right issue.
Presumably the seller had no intention of taking up their rights and no desire to lose money by having their shareholding diluted, making a quick sale preferable.
And I’d guess the buyer might be an existing shareholder (or consortium of shareholders) who plans to take up as many shares as possible in the rights issue with the aim of gaining control and a few extra percent now helps this along the way.
In fact, if you are a spiv looking to gain control and other investors are clearly not interested in investing more cash then the right issue is a perfect way to make it desirable for them to sell to you – because their alternative is to see their shares devalued even further during the issue.
////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Of course you’re right, although what I really was trying to say was that they were not interested in participating in respect of the 1.8M shares in isolation. It would certainly be a mechanism by which minority holders would now be deterred from participating in the rights issue due to uncertainty over the post-rights potential for a 75% controlling concert party that could force through a delisting. I await the AIM announcement with interest.
A Question
Excluding Celtic
The death of RFC was followed by a significant improvement in the footballing performance of most SPL clubs
Even the mighty Celtic found it impossible to scoop up all the trophies
Which begs the question
Having rediscovered that the opposition are mere mortals capable of losing important games
And even
Glasgow Celtic are beatable some of the time
Do the fans of these clubs think their trophy winning window will close when TRFC get into the top league?
Do they think the “Old Firm” bias will return with a vengeance ?
Because if they do
They ought to ask themselves
Does Old firm bias really = Old firm bias?
Or
Does Old firm bias = TRFC bias?
John Clark says:
September 1, 2014 at 10:54 pm
3
0
Rate This
easyJambo says:
September 1, 2014 at 10:01 pm
‘..———————–
If the trades we saw today were the sale and the purchase of the same lot of 1.8M shares, then it is possible that there will be no notification to AIM.’
——
What I find puzzling is why it is not clear that one entry is a ‘sale’ and the other a ‘buy’, although the fact that they both occurred at precisely the same time would suggest that. Other entries are shown as ‘buy’ or ‘sale’.
Was this , as someone mentioned earlier in the day, only a wee glitch in the system, do you think? Or COULD it have been an attempt to circumvent the need for a regulatory statement on the 3% issue?
( I do try not to be suspicious, but the more we read of how these things work, the more we kick ourselves for our erstwhile naivety and innocent trustfulness! 😀
_____________________________________________________
All we know for sure is the shares changed hands.
The Buy/Sell thing works as follows… bear in mind I am talking about proper functioning markets not basketcase entities being swapped about by spivs.
Traders take positions and issue standing instructions on a give share:
Suppose I think x represents good value for a stock. I will issue instruction to my broker that I’ll buy n shares at price x. Clearly x is a number less than they are currently being traded, because otherwise my broker would act immediately. When someone makes shares available at x on the basis of a downward price movement, my instructions come into effect.
It is a SELL transaction because, even though I am BUYING them, the transaction is only realsised because of downward price pressure and the new ’emergence’ of someone willing to SELL at that (low) price: the buyer was pre existing. Alway there. Waiting in the wings.
In the reverse scenario, I hold m shares of the stock already. I take a position on it that when the share price reaches y, I have made as much money as I think I can so am prepared to sell the stock at that level. Typically, y is a number lower than the current price, because otherwise the trade would be immediate and the stock would have been sold.
The company does well (or arbitage comes into play etc.) and its stock rises. When someone decides that they are prepared to pay y for my shares, my instruction becomes effective and my shares are sold. It is labelled a BUY because the trade is effected by the emergence of a BUYER prepared to pay that price. The seller in that case was pre-existing.
The price at which the transaction is effected (hi or lo spread) SHOULD therefore indicate whther it is the emergence of a BUYER hoovering up the stock (price will rise) or a SELLER dumping it (price wil fall) has enabled the transaction and thereby suggest onward movement.
However, that only applies in a functioning marker. If the situation is that people are stuck with a stock they don’t want but aren’t prepared to sell, and there is no one prepared to buy at the level that anyone will sell, what you end up with is low volume trades, or private transfers deals between investors. Neither constitutes a functioning market, so teh buy/sell label becomes arbitrary.
The shares chanegd hands for an agreed price. That is all we know.
It’s getting on for being quite late, and the blog has been quite thought-provoking and quite demanding,for me at least.
As a bit of light relief, and not entirely OT, let me give you a couple of lines from a novel that I ( to my own astonishment) am currently reading:
” But lots of men gamble, Father. Most of the men we know play cards for stakes or bet at the races, or something.And quite a few of them go into debt”
” I know, Cary. But the men you’re talking about don’t cheat.”
” You don’t mean to say Bushrod [Cary’s brother] CHEATED AT CARDS!”
” Yes,that’s just what I mean”.
She looked at him in horror…..If he had told her that SDM [strike that, Bushrod]was drinking too heavily, or that he had become entangled with a girl who was not his social equal and whom he had no intention of marrying, Cary would have understood and been lenient…. But no gentleman ever cheated at cards.”
Cards, football, football governance….!
( If anyone can identify, without, on their honour, using the internet, the novel I quote from, I wish him or her well, and will duly credit him/her).
Resin_lab_dog says:
September 2, 2014 at 12:06 am
0
0
Rate This
__________________________________________
ERRATUM
Typically, y is a number x(lower)x HIGHER than the current price, because otherwise the trade would be immediate and the stock would have been sold.
Obviously, with a standing instruction, I would aim to sell on a price rise not a fall.
(Selling on a price fall would be ‘dumping’ and would be immediate.)
Apologies for any lack of clarity.
Resin_lab_dog says:
September 2, 2014 at 12:06 am
‘…The shares chanegd hands for an agreed price. That is all we know.’
——-
Thank you.
I appreciate the bother you went to try to explain to a finance dummy like me.Not sure I entirely understand,though. I’ll need to work on the subject!
Another thought has just struck me with teh share trades…
Bonuses are due, no?
What of some of the bonuses were in shares that were vesting?
And what if current share price is now lower than the cash option?
e.g. RIFC shares are trading at 80p.
Employee X is offered say 100,000 shares at 50p in leiu of £50,000 salary.
The accounts would have to show a ‘paper’ charge liability to fund this initially, with the epectation that on vesting the cash liability would crystallise.
Of course, now that liability looks alot less onerous.If the company buys the shares needed to meet this obligation on the open market at a price that is well below the paper liability it has for them,
The employee has sacrificide £50,000 in the expectation of getting £80,000 in shares, but has only got shares to the value of £20,000. And the company has discharged a libility of £50K plus for £20K.
IF TRFC players or directors had this type of structure in their contracts, the share price fall will have hammered them.
In this case, that trade could be the company buying its own shares to pay off bonuses that are due, rather than simply issuing them.
John Clark says:
September 2, 2014 at 12:06 am
————————
You’re reading the classic “The SFA Is Run” by Norma Stitz
Re the share trade: I think that two parties had an agreement to execute the trade at the mid market price prevailing on 1st September.
The agreement may have been made some weeks or maybe months ago, and may have been part of an option. e.g. Sandy Easdale receiving his £500K loan (or part thereof) in shares while some other Spiv walks away with the cash in exchange for their shares.
The trades were marked as neither “buy” nor “sell” because of the mid market price between the Bid and Ask prices.
If someone had “sold” 3.6M shares then I think that the price would be significantly lower than that achieved.
I might be totally wrong, but it has the look of an agreed trade.
Broadswordcallingdannybhoy says:
September 2, 2014 at 12:34 am
‘..You’re reading the classic “The SFA Is Run” by Norma Stitz’
—-
Nice one, made me laugh.But are they up?
John Clark says:
September 2, 2014 at 12:50 am
===========================================
Events down Sevco way will determine that.
Can you guess from where I stole her name?
Broadswordcallingdannybhoy says:
September 2, 2014 at 12:58 am
‘..Can you guess from where I stole her name?.’
——–
No, but I somehow feel that I should be able to.Go on, tell me!