Time for Scots Government to Take Bull by the Horns


It looks as if Henderson & Jones still see some …

Comment on Time for Scots Government to Take Bull by the Horns by easyJambo.

It looks as if Henderson & Jones still see some mileage in their claim against the Oldco.

There has been a document lodged at Companies House seeking to resurrect TRFCG (Wavetower) from its recent dissolution.

20 Jul 2017 RT01 Administrative restoration application

easyJambo Also Commented

Time for Scots Government to Take Bull by the Horns
JJ’s latest blog and email chain from the days following the LNS decision are illuminating. Well done to him for sourcing and publishing the information.

We have the following board members commenting as follows:

Michael Johnston (Kilmarnock) – In my view, we should NOT appeal. 

Stephen Thomson (Dundee United) – I personally wish to ‘draw a line under this’ and move on.

Ralph Topping (Independent chairman) – The outcome in my view is still not proportionate.

Duncan Fraser (Aberdeen) – I am at pains to point out that I, like Ralph, find the size of the fine and therefore the punishment to be disproportionate to the scale of the actions undertaken. 

….. and in conclusion:

Ralph Topping – The consensus is clear on an appeal. There is a majority against.

Time for Scots Government to Take Bull by the Horns
Den July 16, 2017 at 23:08 
It would be good to have the details of the Ticketus arrangements.
Most of the details have been disclosed in various statutory documents, e.g. Companies House, court documents or creditors reports.  The figures vary somewhat from one to another, but the essence of the arrangements can be established.

Rangers use of Ticketus prior to Whyte was normally done on a fee only basis, e.g Ticketus will advance you £3M for three months against ST sales for a fee of £160k. Those figures came from Rangers Financial Director, Donald McIntyre, in court.

Figures from the Whyte period rely on official documents. The MG05S security document lodged at Companies House in May 2011, specified the no. of STs involved as:
2011/12 – 23,154
2012/13 – 27,017
2013/14 – 27,014
2014/15 – 23,154

Payments from Ticketus to RFC were recorded as follows:
The original criminal indictment.
£24,337,094 into Collyer Bristow client account on 07/04/11  (probably included VAT which Ticketus would reclaim)

Lord Hodge’s ruling on 23/04/12
£20,300,912 on 9 May 2011 (first tranche) – for first three seasons (seems like the above figure net of VAT)
£5, 075,213 on 21 Sep 2011 (second tranche) – for more STs from 2012/13 plus 2014/15

D&P Creditors Report 05/04/12
£20,300,000 Advanced May 11 – STs from 2011/12, 2012/13, 2013/14 (first tranche net of VAT?)
£25,400,000 Revenue expected in return
£3,000,000 Repaid June 2011
£5,000,000 Advanced September 2011 – STs from 2012/13, 2014/15 (second tranche)
£9,300,000 Revenue expected in return
£5,000,000 Repaid September 2011
£26,700,000 Creditors Claim April 2012 – (equates to total revenue expected less amount repaid)

Time for Scots Government to Take Bull by the Horns
John Clark July 16, 2017 at 22:16
easyJamboJuly 16, 2017 at 19:51 ‘….H&J were given 28 days to formally submit a revised claim to BDO, who would then assess it on its merits and judge on its validity…’ ________ In loose connection, eJ, did you notice that The Rangers FC Group Ltd ( formerly Wavetower) was formally ‘dissolved’ on 27/06/17?
Yes I had picked that up.  H&J were appointed directors of TRFCG, Law Financial, Liberty Corporate and Sevco 5088, all on 12 June 2017.

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