The Existence of Laws


Http:// The Scottish FA is considering launching an investigation of links …

Comment on The Existence of Laws by easyJambo.

The Scottish FA is considering launching an investigation of links between Rangers and former owner Craig Whyte.

Scottish FA chief executive Stewart Regan said that it was yet to be decided if an inquiry would be set in motion to determine if Whyte had any connections to the club.

Regan said that findings from the Ibrox club’s own inquiry into the matter had been passed to the Scottish FA. That information has been reviewed and senior figures at Hampden are considering their next course of action.

Whyte was banned by the governing body from having any involvement in Scottish football following his time at Rangers and is being pursued by the Scottish FA for a fine levied as part of a disciplinary charge.

The former Rangers owner has since claimed that he was a director of Sevco 5088, which was formed in the initial stages of Charles Green’s buyout of Rangers’ assets. The Scottish FA requested information from Rangers about any connection with Whyte but was awaiting the outcome of the club’s own investigation.

That investigation, undertaken by Pinsent Masons LLP, failed to find any evidence of links between Whyte and Sevco Scotland – the company used by a consortium led by businessman Charles Green to acquire the club’s assets last year – or Rangers International Football Club plc.

However, Rangers did not comment on the investigation’s findings on the alleged links between Green, Whyte and Sevco 5088 – a separate company which had an exclusive deal with Rangers’ administrators to buy the club’s assets

easyJambo Also Commented

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

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

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