The Real Battle Begins?

By

As regards the club versus company, or debt versus history …

Comment on The Real Battle Begins? by Smugas.

As regards the club versus company, or debt versus history arguement. The company had the debt. The club didn’t. The club, this ethereal brand thingy didn’t bother itself with wordly things such as debt, nor does it apparently see any need to recognise such trivial items as transfer of membership (why?) transfer of history (why?) euro ban (why?) etc etc. I assume however they would acknowledge that Nacho Novo, to choose one of several, was kind of, fairly, one might even say inextricably linked to the club as opposed to that funny old irrelevant company thingymejig. Said player “doing the business” when he had no such business being on the park might be considered to be undeniably a bit of a club issue, would it not?

Just a thought.

Oh, and on the debt thing. If you think “no-one likes them” now, just wait till the January cheques have been signed. For me, my contempt is only going to get worse. Assuming I keep paying tax right enough!

Smugas Also Commented

The Real Battle Begins?
paulsatim says:
Tuesday, December 18, 2012 at 11:31

As I read it…No, because Opcapita were the Charles Green of their scenario whereas Deloite were the D&P. Deloitte’s report with no background, I understand, of any assertion of conflicted interest has commented, presumably fairly without fear or favour etc etc that it does seem a little off how the new Comet (sevco) could have paid significant fees to the new owners whilst operating at considerable, and fatal, loss. Vince Cable appears to have picked up on Deloitte’s report, agreed, and ordered an enquiry.

Should there be any similarities in the treatment of Deloitte and D&P in this regard. Hell no.


The Real Battle Begins?
From Richard Wilson’s link above

“Only one thing is certain – should Rangers choose to antagonise the SPL and SFA further and should the SPL or SFA choose to carry out league reconstruction less favourable to Rangers than the current proposals then the choice will be simple: Administration now or Administration later and fans will be forced, once more, to watch their club slowly die.”

I’m struggling to see exactly how ra’peepil could antagonise the SPL and SFA further without using the words “bend” and “over,” and perhaps “some” and “more.”


The Real Battle Begins?
goose,

A plan that is just brilliant, in its conception (check) its manipulation (check) its description by you (check) and its wide journalistic reporting (doh!). The only bit I wait to see how it pans out is when the TU/CW debt physically has to be paid off rather than simply shuffled around, how they actually achieve it. It’ll be a balance between the Kings of this world deciding if they can see enough clear air between TRFC and various troublesome enquiries, investigations etc, plus the possibility of a forward cash flow that is anything like positive, or even manageably negative and asking the bearz to dip (double dip?) just one more time, probably using a Whyte-will-sell-Ibrox-to-Tesco strap line.

As I said earlier, apart from disgust at the way it has been reported (notwithstanding that your entirely unsubstantiated play on this is pure guesswork) I actually wish the protagonists the best of luck at pulling it off – as long as the authorities are not actively aiding and abetting (as opposed to sitting with their thumbs in their proverbial)


Recent Comments by Smugas

It Is Better To Offer No Excuse Than A Bad One
In fairness to the pundits.   To a man Tonight (considering the chopped off derby goal) they could not understand why the tele evidence instantly available to anyone with a phone couldn’t be used in that scenario.  


It Is Better To Offer No Excuse Than A Bad One
In simplistic terms, as far as the recipients were concerned, the monies were paid in net.  I.e. as far as they were concerned all tax payable had been deducted and paid. Billy Dodds said as much on the radio as I recall.  What SDM said in one of the hearings was that they took the monies that would otherwise have been deducted and forwarded for tax added it to the payment to the player.  Hence a player who would have received £60 wages and in addition had deducted £40 in cash to give a £100 total from any other club would have received the whole £100 from oldco.  This gave rise to the famous quote about “buying players they couldn’t otherwise afford.”

so the answer to your question is…both!

The reason for the confusion of course is because the players had side letters explaining all this but sssshhhhh, they’re secret.


It Is Better To Offer No Excuse Than A Bad One
So, square the circle.

1/  King told to make offer.  No guarantee of level of take up especially given that…
2/  Future security of club predicated on King Loan.
3/  King saying he can’t afford to make offer so would presumably have to resign.
4/  Potential that him resigning causes share loss (ignoring imminent dilution).  One would think that might tempt a few more to his offer. 
4/  Also small matter that regardless of whether he resigns or not, whether he offers and whether they take up his offer, the future security of the club is still predicated on his loan.
5/  If he’s not a director can he trust the board with his extended loan, especially given that…
6/  In case you haven’t spotted it this is a loss making business.  Extending that loan doesn’t staunch the flow it simply pours more in the top to be leaked.  Staunching the flow requires more profitable surroundings (a new CL bucket).  But that needs investment and then…..

Ok you get the rest!
 


It Is Better To Offer No Excuse Than A Bad One
FWIW I still don’t see any advantage to them in ‘eventing.’  Threatening to ‘event.’  Yes for sure. That’ll get all the Christmas coppers rattling in the buckets  since whilst they may look down their nose at a credible challenge for 2nd it would still be a great result for them and give them European access.  Interestingly of course so does 3rd (4th?).  As clubs like Aberdeen know its actually bloody expensive in relative terms being the plucky loser.  But I fear crowd indifference would kick in.  Aberdeen losing 2000 fans by accepting 3rd is no biggie.  Rangers losing 20,000 is a different barrel of kippers.  

The no-event assumption has two core requirements of course.

1/  All parties keep speaking to each other, ignore individual rationality and act instead for the greater good of the club (don’t start) particularly in view of….
2/  Somebody, somewhere has to pony up to keep the loss making bus on the road else it grinds to a halt in the race to the top.  Shouting and screaming and stamping their foot that its all so unfair unless all the other buses are told to stop too is unlikely to get a sympathetic hearing.  Well, not from the fans anyway…. 


It Is Better To Offer No Excuse Than A Bad One
Homunculus @ 12.38

My thoughts exactly.  The AGM stuff to me made sense to a/ get a hold of 1872’s ‘new’ money with zero repayment clause and b/ to tidy up the balance sheet with a view to a euro licence (listed you will recall as essential to the clumpany’s future well being) which will surely be scrutinised like never before.  It makes no sense for the creditors to do it (unless a billionaire has flown in off the radar offering more per share for their quantum than a simple loan repayment would yield i.e. parity*) and it makes even less sense to allow a situation where the creditors can individually decide whether to do so given the fragility of the underlying company(ies).  Particularly given the reputation of some of the principle creditors.  

* parity insofar as they’d get their money back.  It is not enough to promise growth on their shares in some future dream complete with CL soundtrack if achieving said dream is literally costing you money in the meantime in terms of shareholder calls. RBS being the most recent example to spring to mind.  


About the author