SFM Podcast #6: Dave King & Oldco

By

UTH It intrigues me that you feel that the SFA would …

Comment on SFM Podcast #6: Dave King & Oldco by Smugas.

UTH

It intrigues me that you feel that the SFA would feel the need to ‘accomodate’ a membership transfer but then would somehow have a problem with the transfer of what they would consider the associated honours 😈

When our club membership certificate versions 1,2,and 3 goes up, to win the Scottish cup dum de dum, dum de dum

Smugas Also Commented

SFM Podcast #6: Dave King & Oldco

Justshatered @ 10.58

I cannot imagine intelligent business people putting money into this enterprise with encumbered assets, no one seems to know who or what owns anything attached to it, legal battles and court cases abound and the business itself is still losing money hand over fist.

And there’s the rub JS. category A businessmen won’t touch it for all the reasons you state. Category B businessmen will look at legal methods to bypass the ownership issues if it leaves them with a profitable herd for them to milk. Category C businessmen (usually referred to as shysters) can look past, indeed know inside out the legalista required to bypass the ownership issues and can live with a loss maker (avoids those pesky tax charges for a start) if they still get their cream off the top.

This herd is on its last legs and the cream content is log gone.

That just leaves the category D guys, usually recognised by their black wings, bald heads and ability to fly in circles. Suffice it to say that feeding and reinvigorating the herd to enjoy a more ample meal at some undefined point in the future is rarely their modus operandi.


SFM Podcast #6: Dave King & Oldco

Corrupt official 23rd September 2015 at 6:10 pm #

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-34339216

I suppose in a bizarre way he may have a point. Many of his charges may be sub texted with, “Whilst acting as CEO you did this”, or “In your capacity as director”, etc.
As he was acting on behalf of the clumpany, they may be obliged to defend him…..And themselves for that matter!.

…somewhere in a courtroom not so far away….

Defendant…So I put it to you your lordship that he was of course acting on behalf of the company but we are of course the club which is totally different, totally, absolutely.

Lordship….Whit?


SFM Podcast #6: Dave King & Oldco
Cheers Tyke,

That’s what I thought. That would suggest that the 2011 purchase isn’t the one being particularly scrutinised, no?

zerotolerance,

That would then bring the missing deed of novation into play. The interim buyer (5088) is only the same as the initial buyer (Wavetower a la Whyte) if the business and assets passed through 5088 en route to Sevco Scotland (assuming of course that Whyte is not involved with Sevco Scotland which I’m sure the SFA can clear up for us).


Recent Comments by Smugas

It Is Better To Offer No Excuse Than A Bad One
In fairness to the pundits.   To a man Tonight (considering the chopped off derby goal) they could not understand why the tele evidence instantly available to anyone with a phone couldn’t be used in that scenario.  


It Is Better To Offer No Excuse Than A Bad One
In simplistic terms, as far as the recipients were concerned, the monies were paid in net.  I.e. as far as they were concerned all tax payable had been deducted and paid. Billy Dodds said as much on the radio as I recall.  What SDM said in one of the hearings was that they took the monies that would otherwise have been deducted and forwarded for tax added it to the payment to the player.  Hence a player who would have received £60 wages and in addition had deducted £40 in cash to give a £100 total from any other club would have received the whole £100 from oldco.  This gave rise to the famous quote about “buying players they couldn’t otherwise afford.”

so the answer to your question is…both!

The reason for the confusion of course is because the players had side letters explaining all this but sssshhhhh, they’re secret.


It Is Better To Offer No Excuse Than A Bad One
So, square the circle.

1/  King told to make offer.  No guarantee of level of take up especially given that…
2/  Future security of club predicated on King Loan.
3/  King saying he can’t afford to make offer so would presumably have to resign.
4/  Potential that him resigning causes share loss (ignoring imminent dilution).  One would think that might tempt a few more to his offer. 
4/  Also small matter that regardless of whether he resigns or not, whether he offers and whether they take up his offer, the future security of the club is still predicated on his loan.
5/  If he’s not a director can he trust the board with his extended loan, especially given that…
6/  In case you haven’t spotted it this is a loss making business.  Extending that loan doesn’t staunch the flow it simply pours more in the top to be leaked.  Staunching the flow requires more profitable surroundings (a new CL bucket).  But that needs investment and then…..

Ok you get the rest!
 


It Is Better To Offer No Excuse Than A Bad One
FWIW I still don’t see any advantage to them in ‘eventing.’  Threatening to ‘event.’  Yes for sure. That’ll get all the Christmas coppers rattling in the buckets  since whilst they may look down their nose at a credible challenge for 2nd it would still be a great result for them and give them European access.  Interestingly of course so does 3rd (4th?).  As clubs like Aberdeen know its actually bloody expensive in relative terms being the plucky loser.  But I fear crowd indifference would kick in.  Aberdeen losing 2000 fans by accepting 3rd is no biggie.  Rangers losing 20,000 is a different barrel of kippers.  

The no-event assumption has two core requirements of course.

1/  All parties keep speaking to each other, ignore individual rationality and act instead for the greater good of the club (don’t start) particularly in view of….
2/  Somebody, somewhere has to pony up to keep the loss making bus on the road else it grinds to a halt in the race to the top.  Shouting and screaming and stamping their foot that its all so unfair unless all the other buses are told to stop too is unlikely to get a sympathetic hearing.  Well, not from the fans anyway…. 


It Is Better To Offer No Excuse Than A Bad One
Homunculus @ 12.38

My thoughts exactly.  The AGM stuff to me made sense to a/ get a hold of 1872’s ‘new’ money with zero repayment clause and b/ to tidy up the balance sheet with a view to a euro licence (listed you will recall as essential to the clumpany’s future well being) which will surely be scrutinised like never before.  It makes no sense for the creditors to do it (unless a billionaire has flown in off the radar offering more per share for their quantum than a simple loan repayment would yield i.e. parity*) and it makes even less sense to allow a situation where the creditors can individually decide whether to do so given the fragility of the underlying company(ies).  Particularly given the reputation of some of the principle creditors.  

* parity insofar as they’d get their money back.  It is not enough to promise growth on their shares in some future dream complete with CL soundtrack if achieving said dream is literally costing you money in the meantime in terms of shareholder calls. RBS being the most recent example to spring to mind.  


About the author