The Causes of Crime

Avatar By

One for this week’s court diary LORD BRODIE – J Harding, …

Comment on The Causes of Crime by easyJambo.

One for this week’s court diary
LORD BRODIE – J Harding, Clerk
Friday 28th October
Starred Motion
P989/15 Pet: Michael Ashley for Judicial Review
Brodies LLP – Burness Paull LLP

This case was Ashley’s appeal against the “dual interest” tribunal decision of the SFA.  The petition was dismissed and the previous CoS decision can be found below. Friday’s proceedings may just be about costs.

Meanwhile ……… What has Big Pink been up to?  07

Thursday 27th October
Continued Summar Roll
A1378/91 Reclaiming Motion (LadyStacey) in the cause John Cole &c v Advocate General for Scotland
Allan McDougall – Morton Fraser LLP

easyJambo Also Commented

The Causes of Crime
Corrupt official October 23, 2016 at 10:51
EJ?…. For I think it was thee, who posted the cost to Celtic from the ’95 accounts for Hampden rental. Can you extrapolate from the accounts as to whether there were any other costs to Celtic, such as catering,     Did Celtic earn anything from that, or did the SFA keep the pies?, or where there any other “hidden” costs.    I would look myself, but accounts and I are not bed-fellows 
There is nothing in the accounts that provides any details about the Lease.

It was first mentioned in the 1994 accounts as being “very costly” for the next season.

The 1995 accounts simply recorded the £457K as an “exceptional item” in the Profit and Loss account, with a description of “Costs incurred on the Club’s temporary relocation to Hampden Park”

I can’t find any separate entry about any income.

The Causes of Crime
 billyj1October 22, 2016 at 18:28
There was a report circulating not too long ago that the SFA’s lease of Hampden was due to come to an end. There was even more speculation that as part of the negotiating ploy the SFA might buy and move to Auchenhow. There is in my opinion something going on. Don’t be surprised if the SFA end up renewing their lease of Hampden and somehow RFC or whatever they want to be called end up with a lease of Hampden football facilities on favourable terms.
The SFA took out a 20 year lease on Hampden Park in April 2000.  The lease was assigned to Hampden Park Limited in May 2008.  HPL has an option to extend the lease by a further 20 years.

The cost of the lease is currently around £305K per annum.

The SFA has a number of options it could consider going forward
* Renew the lease and stay at Hampden for a further 20 years (probably with a higher cost per annum)
* Move to Murrayfield and share the “National Stadium” with the SRU
* Move offices etc to the new National Performance Centre at Riccarton and play Scotland games around the country
* Rent office space in Glasgow or other location and play Scotland games around the country.

My own personal preference would be a move to Murrayfield and allow Queens Park to sell the Hampden site and use the proceeds to protect their future at lesser Hampden or another site. I think that staying at Hampden would be a parochial decision and would mean continuing to used a “dated” stadium whose bowl design is no longer suitable as a top class venue for football.   

The Causes of Crime
Billy Boyce  October 21, 2016 at 20:58 
Re: TRFC renting Hampden.  Surely the decision to allow this would require a consensus of the clubs and not merely the nod of a SFA sub committee?   I wonder if anyone has to hand the amount Celtic paid for the rental of Hampden in 1994/5 and what the present day equivalent amount would be with inflation?
Celtic paid £457,000 in respect of their temporary move to Hampden, according to their 1995 accounts.

As a comparison, Hearts were offered the use of Murrayfield for season 2005/06 for an initial £550,000 p.a. plus £50,000 for access to Hospitality facilities during Chris Robinson’s aborted attempt to move the club away from Tynecastle.

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