The Rangers saga as it happened…


Roland Brown says: August 30, 2012 at 14:56 This is what …

Comment on The Rangers saga as it happened… by easyJambo.

Roland Brown says: August 30, 2012 at 14:56

This is what is known as the “solidarity” payment. It is meant to be distributed between the association’s member clubs primarily for youth development.

It is not a new thing. Clubs have received similar distributions in previous years.

easyJambo Also Commented

The Rangers saga as it happened…
A footnote to my last post. Scotland received €690,000 for 2011/12. We get more this year due to Celtic reaching the group stages.

The Rangers saga as it happened…
Allyjambo Taxpayer says: August 29, 2012 at 20:51

Labour’s George Foulkes (Baron Foulkes of Cumnock) and the Tories David McLetchie both sit in section D of the Wheatfield stand at Tynecastle.

Pity I didn’t renew my ST this season. 🙂

The Rangers saga as it happened…
Torrevieja Johnbhoy says:

Funnily enough,this has just appeared.All it does is highlight the difference between what RFC could be,and are actually playing for.
Therein lies the financial quandary that Scottish Football finds itself. All credit to Celtic if they make it through tonight, but it is something of a bitter pill to see one club receive income, from the single source of CL participation, that exceeds the annual income, from all sources, of Aberdeen, Hibs and Hearts combined.

Do such inequalities actually help the game in this country? I know that Auldheid has repeatedly canvassed for a proportion of clubs’ European earnings to be channelled back into the wider game. I have a lot of sympathy with his thoughts on this.

Over the past few seasons we have seen the results of one club (RFC(IA) squandering successive years of such a bounty on transfer fees and players wages, then last season Scottish football as a whole had the experience of a fallow year without any CL income. Celtic now have the opportunity to do what is right both for the long term future of the club and ideally the wider Scottish game.

I assume that the Celtic Board will firstly clear any debt resulting from losses accrued last season. I expect that the figures, due out in the next 4-8 weeks, wiill show something of the order of a £5M-8M loss for the period. What will they do with the rest? How much will Neil Lennon get to spend? Will the money be squandered on higher wages for players and officials? Will the club pay back the supporters in reduced ST prices next season?

It it an interesting challenge. The club appear to want to buy in potential talent from overseas at £1m-4M, develop them further and sell them on at a profit. I’d rather that they stuck with developing domestic players like Forrest or Watt, Fraser or Irvine. That way Scottish football would benefit, e.g. Airdrie Utd from the progress of Watt. Similarly, if they paid back the fans for their support with lower prices, then that would help maintain higher attendances, including visiting fans, and wider interest in the game.

I fear, however, that self interest will prevail and that the club will continue to look to recruit foreign talent, paying higher wages, which ultimately takes money out the Scottish game rather than investing in the future health of the domestic scene.

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