Scottish Football: An Honest Game, Honestly Governed?

By

Bizarre decision for Lunny to issue a notice of complaint …

Comment on Scottish Football: An Honest Game, Honestly Governed? by easyJambo.

Bizarre decision for Lunny to issue a notice of complaint against Leigh Griffiths for singing about Hearts being in Administration.

http://www.scottishfa.co.uk/scottish_fa_news.cfm?page=2566&newsCategoryID=1&newsID=13206

Now why have 41 clubs not been sanctioned for their fans singing about RFC being in Liquidation?

easyJambo Also Commented

Scottish Football: An Honest Game, Honestly Governed?
STV’s report on today’s proceedings
http://news.stv.tv/west-central/270081-imran-ahmad-obtains-documents-from-rangers-during-50000-court-case/

Former Rangers commercial director Imran Ahmad has been successful in obtaining documents from the club relating to his £500,000 legal case against them.

Mr Ahmad claims he is owed the amount as a contractually-agreed bonus for negotiating a reported £10m deal with sportswear firm Puma and retailer Sports Direct.

He failed, however, to secure copies of the contracts with the two companies, with Rangers raising fears they could be leaked on the internet.

Ahmad’s contract with Rangers, which was terminated last year, stated he would receive five per cent of revenue on any commercial deals he negotiated during his time at Ibrox.

At a court hearing on Tuesday, Mr Ahmad was given certain documents to try and form his case that he was contractually entitled to £500k bonus. However, he failed to secure the handing over of actual contracts negotiated, for now, as Rangers argued confidentially issues.

The case, which could be brought forward to November instead of a February 2015 hearing, will determine whether he was entitled to a bonus on deals he did not exclusively negotiate.

It will also determine whether a handwritten letter from former chief executive Charles Green, which stated he would receive £500,000 in bonuses, was legally binding. Rangers’ counsel argue Green did not have the express power to authorise such a payment.

At the Court of Session on Tuesday, Ahmad’s counsel, Kenneth McBrearty QC, requested the transfer of a series of commercial documents from Rangers relating to the case.

Ahmad, who was not present, requested copies of the contracts entered into with Puma and Sports Direct to form his case that he was involved in the negotiations.

Rangers’ QC Alan Summers argued that those contracts contained commercially sensitive information and expressed concern that an “unnatural interest” in the club’ inner dealings could lead to the documents being leaked into the public domain.

Lord Woolman agreed to hold over a ruling on whether Mr Ahmad could have access to said documents until a hearing on May 13.

Ahmad also called for financial statements relating to the deal. He requested both financial projections and up-to-date statements on turnover and profit from the retail business.

He also requested contracts and leases regarding the purchase of the Albion Car Park, which he claims to have been involved in. Lord Woolman granted access. Rangers’ counsel stated it would take three weeks for all details to be provided.

Ahmad was also successful in having Rangers hand over e-mails from his club account which relate to the deal.

An agreement was reached whereby a court-appointed commissioner will be given the data to extract relevant information. The main part of Mr Ahmad’s case, which was due to be held in February 2015, could now be held in November this year. A decision will be reached on that matter at the next court date.

The availability of star witness Green will also play a part in determining whether the case will be heard in November. It was stated that Mr Green had been contacted to state whether he would be available but had not yet replied.


Scottish Football: An Honest Game, Honestly Governed?
John Clark says: April 1, 2014 at 1:01 pm

easyJambo says: April 1, 2014 at 12:48 pm
—–
EJ, I thought further action on the Ahmad case had been kicked into next year. Is Grant reporting a |Court hearing?
==============================
Apparently it was a hearing today, to discuss Ahmad’s request for disclosure of documents.

The date for the full case to be heard had still to be set. I thought this was due to start yesterday, but another poster put me right isn saying it had been delayed. I din’t know anything about today until I saw Grant’s tweets.


Scottish Football: An Honest Game, Honestly Governed?
Campbellsmoney says: April 1, 2014 at 11:29 am

Thanks EJ – do UBIG own UKIO (or is it the other way round?) or am I off on one completely?

I hope you are right and that it is a temporary blip.
==============================
The last info I have was that Vlad owned 65% of Ukio Bankas. (3rd qtr 2012)

Ukio Bankas in turn owned 17.3% of UBIG (Dec 2012)
Also a P Romanov owned 16.9%
Olga Goncarcuk (Vlad’s sister) owned 5%
——————————————
Basically UBIG had been borrowing excessive amounts from Ukio. These are classed as related party loans because of Vlad’s involvement and there are restrictions on how much you can lend in this way. Much of the lending was also unsecured.

Ukio’s dodgy lending practices were discovered by the Lithuanian regulator whose audit discovered that their liabilities exceeded their assets by a fair bit, withdrew their banking licence, and liquidation followed.

UBIG, now being short of readies to fund the other parts of UBIG, followed suit. UBIG’s main investments were a Bosnian Aluminium plant, a Balkan Bank and of course Hearts.

Effectively Vlad used Ukio as a free ATM to fund his follies.
———————————————-
Until December 2012 Hearts actually had no involvement with Ukio as all their debts were due to UBIG, however in an effort to shore up the Ukio balance sheet, he transferred a load of assets from UBIG to Ukio. That included £15M of debt, but also the security over Tynecastle.
———————————————
Siauliu Bank’s involvement is a bit less clear. They took on the good parts of Ukio’s deposits and loan book (not Hearts), but may separately have loaned money to UBIG. I don’t know what proportion of UBIG’s debts are held by Siauliu Bank, so I’m unsure what they can do in terms of voting power.


Recent Comments by easyJambo

It Is Better To Offer No Excuse Than A Bad One
Allyjambo January 2, 2018 at 14:38
————————
My one overriding memory of the Ibrox disaster was that of the five schoolkids aged between 13 and 15, all from the village of Markinch in Fife, who lost their lives.  I lived just a few miles away and was only 15 myself, at the time.

I remember those losses having a huge impact on the local Fife schools and communities.   


It Is Better To Offer No Excuse Than A Bad One
HOMUNCULUS DECEMBER 28, 2017 at 15:38
It doesn’t matter if it is paid to a trust or your aunt Agatha, you still have to pay the tax. I have no idea why they use the name Agatha, but they do. 
========================
“Aunt Agatha” was used by the RFC QC Andrew Thornhill during the appeals process when discussing the redirection of earnings to a third party.

On a separate point about the share price.  The sale of Ashley’s shares to Club 1872 and Julian Wolhardt was used by King’s QC at the CoS, as an example of shares trading above the 20p price.

The TOP’s QC, however, countered that by claiming that Ashley wasn’t interested in the share price, but was insistent that he received £2m for his shares. To that end, it was pointed out that the price per share paid wasn’t 27p, 27.5p or 28p, but something to the second or third decimal place that ensured that the sum received was not £1,999,999 but a fraction over the £2m figure.  I can’t recall the exact fraction used, but the counter argument put forward seemed entirely plausible.


It Is Better To Offer No Excuse Than A Bad One
Homunculus December 27, 2017 at 22:39
EASYJAMBO DECEMBER 27, 2017 at 22:32
================================
Cheers.
Is there a way of calculating how the issue of new shares reduces the value of the existing ones, or is it not as simple as that. I don’t imagine for a second it is. 
I cannot believe that the sale of new shares does not effect the value of those held by existing shareholders. That would surely be market capitalisation gone mad. 
================================
It’s not as simple as the share price being reduced inversely proportionate to the number of additional shares issued.

The capital value (no of shares x share price) of the club is presently around £16m at 20p a share (80m x 20p), but given that the club also has £16m of debts, you could argue that a debt free club would be worth £32m (or 40p a share).

The value of the shares going forward would depend of the amount of debt written off and the number of shares issued in order to achieve that. e.g. if they double the number of shares to 160m in exchange for writing off half the debt.  The capital value of the club might go up to £24m, as it only has £8m debt, but the value of each shares would probably fall to 15p. (160m x 15p = £24m)

If however, they manage to double the share numbers, write off half the debt, but also raise £4m in new money, then the capital value of the club should go up by £4m (the new money). So you could see the capital value rise to £28m, but still with £8m debt. The share price might then be 17.5p (160m x 17.5p = £28m)

I hope that makes sense. It does to me, but the nuances of share numbers, to debt, to capital raised can easily be lost, if you don’t have an appreciation of where they are at just now, and where they might end up.


It Is Better To Offer No Excuse Than A Bad One
shug December 27, 2017 at 22:05
Great hard fought match tonight.
======================
Sadly, that was two hours of my life I won’t get back.  There was nothing great about it and it was more of a borefest akin to many derbies of yesteryear.  Tom English described it perfectly as “Thud and Blunder”


It Is Better To Offer No Excuse Than A Bad One
Homunculus December 27, 2017 at 18:21
I take it all that has happened is that they passed the resolution allowing them to issue new shares. Those new shares have now been created.
This is them simply notifying Companies House that they have done that, Companies House records show how many shares have been issued.
That has to be done before they can actually sell them to anyone.
Purely a procedural matter I would have though. 
=========================
It’s not got as far as creating the shares. It’s merely confirmation that the Board has the authority to issue shares up to the specified limit.  That authority expires on the date of the next AGM.

The allotment of up to a nominal value of £1,086,376.01, means that new shares equivalent to 1.333 times those currently available can now be issued.  I’m sure that there will be a good reason for the number of new shares being set at that specific level, but I can’t think of one. 


About the author