Staying On The Problem

Avatar By

Just found this in the Spam folder. First posted on …

Comment on Staying On The Problem by easyJambo.

Just found this in the Spam folder. First posted on 13 Aug

I’ve just discovered that Celtic will have earned €9M from their three games in the ICC.  Nice work if you can get it.

easyJambo Also Commented

Staying On The Problem
torrejohnbhoy(@johnbhoy1958)August 16, 2016 at 13:07 
Apologies if posted before. Signed off results for Rangers Retail:
Note that the figures are for the year ended 26 Apr 2015.  The 2016 figures are still outstanding.

Notable points from the report is that the pre tax profit was £2.73M which isn’t a bad return on a Turnover of £4.26M.  £1.94M of that profit comes from the IP Licensing.

Dividends paid out during the year were £2.74M.  Much of that will have been on the original 51%/49% split as the shareholding change didn’t take place until Jan 2015 (the last 3 months of the financial year).  Rangers’ share of the dividends was diminished by the £620K paid to close the unprofitable stores (from the RIFC accounts).  The balance of the onerous contract (unsold stock) was sitting at £130K at year end.

TRFC are suing for £1M for breaches of the IP agreement.  RRL will defend the charge.

It’s difficult to make any fair judgements on the accounts or the current situation without seeing the 2016 accounts.

Staying On The Problem
John Clark  August 12, 2016 at 14:13  Only 5 Scottish club finance directors ( all in the ‘premier’ division) were included in the total of 60.
One significant point from the report is that one of the five Scottish Premiership club surveyed falls into the category of “A cause for grave concern/on the verge of administration”

The survey was taken during June and July, so I’m not sure if the clubs represent the current or previous Premiership sides.  There are a few candidates for clubs in serious financial difficulty, but I’d be tempted to guess at Kilmarnock.  

Staying On The Problem
More court action coming up

RANGERS have launched a multi-million pound legal action against the club’s former directors and billionaire tycoon Mike Ashley.

The Gers allege that Charles Green, Imran Ahmad, Brian Stockbridge and Derek Llambias did not act in the business’ best interests in a commercial deal with Sports Direct.

The deals include an agreement for the naming rights to Ibrox which was sold off for just £1, despite the Light Blues’ believing it is worth £500,000 a year.
The Light Blues also believe that Mr Ashley unfairly benefited and assisted from the alleged negligence displayed by Mr Green and his colleagues, who are being sued in the Court of Session in Edinburgh.

The Premiership side hope to recover a total of £4,106,470.83 from the action.

They also want a civil judge to declare the Partnership Marketing Agreement void.

The action came to light following a short hearing on Friday.

Advocate Craig Sandison QC, who was appearing on behalf of Sports Direct and Mr Ashley, succeeded in his attempt to get Rangers to disclose documents to them.

The lawyer argued that Sports Direct and Mr Ashley needed access to the documents to help them prepare for the case.

Judge Lord Boyd agreed with Mr Sandison’s submissions and allowed both Sports Direct’s and Mr Ashley’s lawyers to access the documents.

He added: “I am content to allow the motion.”

The club’s legal team believe Mr Green, Mr Ahmad and Mr Stockbridge breached their “fiduciary” duties when they negotiated the “naming rights” for Ibrox stadium.

The agreement was in existence for approximately two years but was never enacted.

The directors who negotiated the deal claim that they didn’t do anything wrong.

They say that if another company made a rival offer, Mr Ashley’s firm would have to make another offer at a competitive price to retain the rights.

The club also object to the Partnership Marketing Agreement which was agreed in 2014. This allowed Sports Direct to secure advertising space at Ibrox.

Lawyers acting for Rangers claim the advertising space was also sold for £1.

They claim that Mr Llambias agreed that the agreement with Sports Direct should go ahead.

Rangers claim that Mr Ashley “assisted” in the breach of the “fiduciary duties” owed by the directors to the club.

The individuals deny any wrong doing. The case will next call before the court sometime in the near future.

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
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