The Existence of Laws

By

Chipm0nk says: Friday, June 7, 2013 at 14:05 I …

Comment on The Existence of Laws by easyJambo.

chipm0nk says: Friday, June 7, 2013 at 14:05

I really don’t know what contacting the SNP was supposed to achieve.

From a financial perspective, taxation is not devolved and HMRC are a reserved body. So it’s none of the SNP’s business.

From a sporting point of view, UEFA take a dim view of political interference in football matters (in theory)

So what was contacting them supposed to achieve, some sort of grant or loan.
———————————————————————-
The contact mentioned by D&P was with the Scottish Government, not the SNP per se. I know it’s a pedantic point but the contact would have been made regardless of the party of government.

There was nothing in the audio about the problem being taxation. The issue necessitating contact with the government was that if the bids were to be withdrawn, the money would run out by the end of May, ergo the club would be liquidated, unless some other solution could be found.

As I said in an earlier post, many failing companies will go to the government to see what assistance (if any) they can give, whether it is financial, merely influential, or assist the soon to be unemployed.

easyJambo Also Commented

The Existence of Laws
Meanwhile back in La-La Land over at Tynecastle, Ukio Bankas’ appeal against liquidation has been rejected.

http://online.wsj.com/article/PR-CO-20130612-902347.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

What does that mean for Hearts? Nothing directly for the moment. Ukio are Hearts bankers, albeit they have a security and floating charge over Tynecastle and the club’s other assets.

Hearts debt is judged to be a “bad debt”, otherwise it would have been transferred along with the good debts and assets to Siauliu Bankas when Ukio first went into administration.

Ukio may also hold up to 29.9% of Hearts shares if they have taken up the pledge of shares from UBIG (Hearts parent company) made to Ukio in respect of UBIG’s debts to the bank.

Now is the time for Foundation of Hearts or any other prospective buyer to start negotiating with the Ukio Liquidator. The hope will be that the liquidator will accept a low offer of a few pence in the £ for the debt, the security and if applicable, any shares they hold. They may have to talk down the value of Tynecastle to do so, citing upgrade costs for a new stand, demolition costs for any developer, planning permission difficulties due to COMAH regulations on ethanol storage adjacent to the stadium etc.

On the down side for Hearts, a decision on the likely administration of UBIG is likely in the next few days. Will the SPL/SPFL board judge that Hearts should be penalised for an insolvency event as part of a Group Undertaking? (there are also good arguments against a penalty) If they did it would mean a 15 point penalty going into next season and a very real threat of relegation.

All we can be certain of is that today’s news on Ukio Bankas moves the story on a chapter. I’m not sure how many chapters left though, but it won’t be a lot. 🙂


The Existence of Laws
Just listened to Audio 09. There was a short exchange early on in the audio where D&P ask CW about a meeting between him and Green, where CW allegedly asked for £1M a year. CW laughed it off, in a way that I thought that it may well have been true.

I think that might actually be an important starting point for understanding why Ahmad and Green may have done the dirty on Whyte.

CF has given us tapes of various encounters between Whyte, Green and Ahmad, but there has been nothing in those discussions about what CW would get out of the deal other than indications of a shareholding which depended on the level of the ultimate fundraising.

It got me thinking, what is CF not letting us hear? Lets say that Whyte did indeed ask for £1M a year in perpetuity at one of these meetings (it might even have been recorded). What would Green and Ahmad think about that? Would they think that Whyte was a greedy b****** and that he hadn’t done anything to deserve such deal.

So the two hatch a plan to cut him out of the deal. That meant setting up a separate “Scottish” based Sevco and Green using his position as a director in both Sevco companies to request that D&P conclude the deal with Sevco Scotland and the rest is history.

The timing of the meetings is probably critical, given that Sevco Scotland was set up on 29th May. We have heard tapes of the meeting between Whyte, Ahmad and Stockbridge on 31st May where Ahmad came across very confidently in what would happen. Was it because he and Green had agreed on their plan and the process had started a couple of days earlier with the creation of Sevco Scotland.

That’s my theory for today, but I’m sure that CF will be able to dismiss it, or can she?


The Existence of Laws
I’m only halfway through the most recent tapes, but one thing is clear, thus far, D&P were not aware of Whyte being involved as a backer in the CVA or the asset sale. That is quite important when considering whether or not D&P were party to the change from Sevco 5088 or Sevco Scotland, or if it was a simple case of Ahmad and Green misleading or duping them.


Recent Comments by easyJambo

Fergus McCann v David Murray
Given that the blog has reverted to its seemingly inescapable time warp relating to events of 8-10 years ago, it is appropriate to mark the 10th anniversary of an event that set the ball rolling in contributing to
the sale of RFC for £1, its financial collapse and subsequent consequences of administration, 
liquidation, as well as Res 12. 

That event was HMRC's success in the Aberdeen Asset Management FTTT, the decision for which was published on 29 October 2010

RFC, who operated a similar Discounted Option tax avoidance scheme, had actually been presented with a Tax assessment as early as September 2007, which they appealed.  Their appeal was put on hold pending the outcome of the AAM case. Following the decision, HMRC issued RFC with a new offer to settle the following month.

The rest, as they say, is history and "in the past it must remain".  No matter how many times the blog returns to the events of 8-10 years ago, no-one in the football authorities or in the SMSM is listening, nor are they likely to change their mind now.

I believe that it is now time to move on. Not to forget what happened, but to move on all the same.

That is what I plan to do.


Fergus McCann v David Murray
bect67 26th October 2020 at 20:05

Probably an unfair question, but could you venture an opinion (for the less financially astute members of our community e.g. me!) as to what the comparable returns for TRFC might look like – assuming, in a break from their 8-year old tradition (?) that these be ‘unpockled’?

==============================

You are correct. It is an unfair question mail, but we should get sight of the accounts in the next month or so.

We know they had a forecast £10m shortfall in last year’s accounts. That was almost certainly reduced by their unbudgeted extra EL revenue.  We also know that DK provided a £5m loan facility. We can also state with some certainty that Park, Letham and Taylor plus Gibson provided additional funding which has since been converted to equity in the recent share issue.

They will show a loss, albeit that it will have been covered by the loans/share issue. How much is still outstanding is anyone’s guess.   

They have operated with year on year losses, but despite the doom mongers forecasts they have found a way to remain afloat and grow their business, improving the strength of their squad and on-field performances year on year.

They may forecast further shortfalls for this current year, perhaps with yet another share issue, but there is nothing to suggest that their business plan is failing.  Indeed, they appear to be getting stronger on and off the park.  Their new merchandising deal appears to be working and bringing in additional revenue (I don’t know if SD walked away, with or without cash, or declined to make a matching offer).  They have also sold out their 46,500 ST allocation, meaning that their match day revenue will be as high as it can be in the circumstances.

Covid restrictions will still impact them, but I do think that they are in as good a shape as most other Premiership clubs to come out the other side relatively unscathed. 


Fergus McCann v David Murray
The fall in Celtic’s revenue is across all areas.

Football Operations down £7.5m
Merchandising down £3m
Multimedia and other Commercial activities down £2.7m

This current season could be even more challenging with the increased liabilities and reduced income. The club has also increased its revolving credit facility from £2m to £13m (still unused) just in case.


Fergus McCann v David Murray
Current liabilities  2020 2019 

Trade and other payables     20,744     13,957

Lease liabilities    604       –

Borrowings  1,364     1,364

Provisions    5,942      3,479

Deferred income    21,275    25,614

Totals                    49,929     44,414

Looking at the above figures I was trying to work out the ongoing liabilities for deferred wages.  I don’t know if it will be included in the £6.8m increase in Trade and Other Payables, or in the £2.5m increase in Provisions.

The drop in deferred income suggests a fall of £4.2m in Season Ticket revenue.


Fergus McCann v David Murray
The previous post should read "cash in the bank down"

https://www.londonstockexchange.com/news-article/CCP/results-for-the-year-ended-30-june-2020/14732713


About the author