THAT Debate, and the Beauty of Hindsight

Avatar By

Just been going through James Doleman’s and David Henderson’s tweets …

Comment on THAT Debate, and the Beauty of Hindsight by melbournedee.

Just been going through James Doleman’s and David Henderson’s tweets from todays court proceedings. Always good to have multiple sources to confirm what has been happening, especially with the 140 character limit of Twitter.

Unsurprisingly, the two accounts are largely similar, however, to us bampots, there is an interesting difference in reportage at one point:

James Doleman (3 consecutive tweets)
James Doleman‏ @jamesdoleman 12h12 hours agoMore
McGill email “We need to ensure the purchaser doesnt get any surprises..I think we need to front up on the small tax case”
James Doleman‏ @jamesdoleman 12h12 hours agoMoreReplying to @jamesdoleman
McGill says the case had only recently went from a potential liability and had not “crystallised” until recently Dated 17 March 2011
James Doleman‏ @jamesdoleman 12h12 hours agoMore
Findlay “Murray was anxious that when club sold nothing bad would happen that would reflect badly” McGill “Yes”

David Henderson (5 consecutive tweets)
David Henderson‏ @DJSHenderson 12h12 hours agoMoreEmail Mike Mcgill to advisors and colleagues. “I think we need to ensure that the purchaser does not get any surprises that are within….
David Henderson‏ @DJSHenderson 12h12 hours agoMore…..our knowledge…..I think we require to front up on the small tax case…my fear is this will come up in discussions with the CEO/
David Henderson‏ @DJSHenderson 12h12 hours agoMoreCEO/football manager/working capital session We’re your advisors disinclined to front up? Mike Mcgill- no there had been developments
David Henderson‏ @DJSHenderson 12h12 hours agoMore….and we needed to front up on tax case
David Henderson‏ @DJSHenderson 12h12 hours agoMoreDF – jury’s heard re image, PR, legacy. Murray wanted to ensure that Murray wanted to sell in a way which did not reflect badly on Murray

So JD’s
“went from a potential liability and had not “crystallised” until recently Dated 17 March 2011″

becomes DH’s
“there had been developments”.

As always, the devil is in the detail.

Recent Comments by melbournedee

It Is Better To Offer No Excuse Than A Bad One
ALLYJAMBODECEMBER 22, 2017 at 13:11
Decision [130] For the above reasons in respect of the first issue I find in favour of the respondent, however, in respect to the second issue, I find in favour of the panel and grant the order sought. I reserve all questions of expenses
Could this be a door left open for an appeal?
—————————————————————————————————————
AJ,

The 2 issues considered by the court were:

1) What, on a proper construction of section 995 of the Act, is the ambit of the court’s discretion?

2) If the court has discretion to refuse the order, should the court in the exercise of that discretion refuse the order sought?

Issue 1 – The court agreed that it did have discretion.
Issue 2 – The court decided that it shouldn’t refuse the order an so the order is granted.

No wiggle room – DCK is stuffed


It Is Better To Offer No Excuse Than A Bad One
HOMUNCULUSDECEMBER 21, 2017 at 20:07
Yes but have you amortised those values EJ.
———————————————————–
Amortisation is a non-cash charge and doesn’t result in any cash flow benefit. From the 2016/17 accounts, the unpaid transfer costs at 30th June totalled £7.8 million.
That means Dave King’s promises to fund the club are less than the outstanding transfer costs and all other activities undertaken by the club will generate a positive cash flow, a proposition that I have great difficulty in believing.


Who Is Conning Whom?
Has the TOP issue finally hit? See the link below from the Rangers’s web site
https://rangers.co.uk/club/investor-centre/shareholder-centre/circulars-admission-document/
Please see via the undernoted links the Opening Position Disclosures and Dealing Disclosures received by Rangers International Football Club PLC (RIFC)  as required under Rule 8 of the City Code on Takeovers and Mergers.
Details of RIFC in respect of whom relevant securities Opening Position Disclosures and Dealing Disclosures must be made can be found in the Disclosure Table on the Takeover Panel’s website at www.thetakeoverpanel.org.uk, including details of the number of relevant securities in issue, when the offer period commenced and when any offeror was first identified. You should contact the Panel’s Market Surveillance Unit on +44 (0)20 7638 0129 if you are in any doubt as to whether you are required to make an Opening Position Disclosure or a Dealing Disclosure.
The Takeover Panel Executive has granted RIFC and Mr King a dispensation from the requirements under the Code that announcements must be published via a Regulatory Information Service (RIS).  Any Opening Position Disclosures and Dealing Disclosures required under Rule 8 of the Code may be made to Rangers by email to [companyenquiries@rangers.co.uk] and will be published on Rangers’ website at [https://rangers.co.uk/club/investor-centre/shareholder-centre/circulars-admission-document/].  A copy must also be sent to the Panel’s Market Surveillance Unit by email to monitoring@disclosure.org.uk.
Rule 8.3 Disclosures – Rangers International Football Club PLCRiver and Mercantile Asset Management LLP – LINKGlenmuir Limited – LINKMASH Holdings Limited – LINKClub 1872 Shares CIC – LINKAlIstair Murdoch McCoist – LINKAlexander Easdale and family – LINKMASH Holdings Limited Dealing Disclosure – LINKClub 1872 Shares CIC Dealing Disclosure 1 – LINKClub 1872 Shares CIC Dealing Disclosure 2 – LINKJulian Wolhardt’s Dealing Disclosure – LINK
Rule 8 Opening Position Disclosure:
Offeror
David Cunningham King – LINK
Offeree
Rangers International Football Club PLC – LINK


Enough is enough
Interesting that the accounts have been signed off by Dave King and the Auditors on 26th October.

So the day’s events must have been:

– Pedro Caixinha turns up to take training as usual in the morning
– Dave King signs off the accounts followed by the auditors
– Pedro Caixinha summoned to Ibrox to learn that he has been terminated as Rangers manager
– Too late to change the accounts, so no mention of the payouts due to Pedro and his team, no addition to he future funding requirements to be provided by NOAL and other investors.

Very convenient.


Enough is enough
EASYJAMBONOVEMBER 3, 2017 at 23:00 The costs of acquiring a player, plus his contract (wages) for the period of his contract, are recorded as “intangible assets”, e.g. if a player is bought for £1.5m, and is paid £500k a year for 3 years, then that player represents an intangible asset of £3m in the accounts (£1.5m + 3 x £500k).
——————————————————————————————————————Easy,

The future wages for the player won’t be included in the intangibles figure, only any “up front costs” that need to be paid to secure the contract, then amortised over the life of the contract or written off when the player leaves the club (e.g. Garner, whose remaining value will need to be charged to next year’s accounts).

The accounts specifically mention agents fees and I would expect sign-on bonuses would also be included.

Wages would be charged to the income statement as earned/paid.


About the author

Avatar