Towards a More Professional SFA

By

As I understand it Dave King has contacted shareholders and …

Comment on Towards a More Professional SFA by Homunculus.

As I understand it Dave King has contacted shareholders and informed them that he would be making an offer to buy their shares. He has not made the offer as yet.

He has further said that they will get the offer, along with a recommendation from the board as to whether they should accept it or not.

Pure conjecture on my part is that the other board members have told him that this is the only acceptable option. Clearly they could make things very difficult if he did not comply with this instruction from the Takeover Panel. It would be further conjecture to suggest what advice the board may choose to offer the other shareholders, not part of their concert party. Given the lengths they went to to avoid the 30% limit (at least on the face of it) I suspect the smallest uptake possible would be Mr King’s preferred option. 

It would be mischief making to suggest that if there is a larger uptake than expected things may become difficult. Making an offer is one thing, making good on it is another. 

Homunculus Also Commented

Towards a More Professional SFA
Mr Keys is strongly against tax avoidance apparently.

One wonders why he doesn’t object to it in relation to Rangers.

Putting that aside, Rangers were never demoted. He knows that as well as anyone else. The current club applied to join a league and were rejected. They applied to another and were accepted. There is nothing even remotely confusing or ambiguous in that. 


Towards a More Professional SFA
It is worth bearing in mind that if Mike Ashley takes control of Rangers, or any wealthy businessman takes control of any football club they do not actually “pump money into it”. They provide loans which the club itself then uses to buy players registrations, pay higher salaries, maintain the stadium, or any number of other things.

Look back to Chelsea and Manchester City, there was this assumption that the mega wealthy owners were investing heavily in players and paying higher wages. They weren’t they were providing loans (albeit possibly interest free). Several years ago both clubs converted huge debts into equity. That cleared the debt but there is only so often you can reasonably do that, and you are diluting the other shareholders percentage every time you do.

A sustainable business model with clubs operating within their means is the only way forward, for any club (or business for that matter). Anything else, as has been discussed before, is a hobby.

https://www.ft.com/content/f0b08520-fab5-11de-a532-00144feab49a

Manchester City became the latest English Premier League club to clear its long-term debts in anticipation of tougher financial rules being drawn up Uefa, European football’s governing body, after it announced on Wednesday that its Abu Dhabi owner had converted his £305m ($488m) loans into equity.

Sheikh Mansour bin Zayed Al-Nahyan, who bought the club in September 2008, has invested up to £400m to help fund a player spending spree that mirrors Chelsea’s transfer bonanza under Roman Abramovich.

Sheikh Mansour has now pursued the same debt-clearance strategy of the Russian oligarch. Chelsea announced last week that Mr Abramovich had converted his remaining £340m of loans into equity, in a move the club said would help it comply with forthcoming debt regulations.


Towards a More Professional SFA
BIG PINK
MARCH 27, 2017 at 22:09 

Answer to Homunculus from DL – King required to purchase all shares.

Also, King claim about 50% take up of offer not accurate:
===================================

Thanks for that.

So the real question is why would the holders of worthless shares, with no voting or earning rights not take a payout of £2m. If they had any intention of providing the details required they would have done it before now.

I think talk of this being something and nothing may be a bit off the mark.

The rejection of his appeal was potentially a disaster for Mr King. 


Recent Comments by Homunculus

Moving On Time?
John Clark 21st December 2020 at 23:22

I think the point is that the business has to record the difference between the purchase price of the assets, and their value, in the next set of accounts.

So what they are basically saying (normally) is that we bought that bakery business (for example) for £100 pounds, buy the tangible assets, the ovens etc, are only worth £80 so we paid other £20 for the existing customer base, the reputation etc, and that is just referred to in it's totality as the "goodwill".

As with  lot of accountancy stuff it all just looks like smoke and mirror to lay people like me. 

In Rangers case the tangible assets were, in their opinion worth a whole lot more than what they paid, but they still have to record that figure and like I have been saying, that is the dead giveaway and admission that they underpaid.

I suspect it will be part of BDO's case against the administrator.

As ever this is very much my layman's understanding with apologies to those who actually understand these things.


Moving On Time?
John Clark 18th December 2020 at 18:41

If I remember correctly there was a whole load of discussion wih regards the quality of some of the items and it turned out some was made in China, some was made in India and I think some was made in Europe, I have no idea which manufacturer actually made the stuff but I suspect it was just factories who were able to produce what was required so long as they were given the materials and the patterns.

I don't think that's too unusual but I have no experience in the field. 


Moving On Time?
Timtim 16th December 2020 at 19:54

Clearly the King is dead for Keith.

He has changed sides to the one on which his bread is now buttered.

To be fair on the current board, King's move was a bit off, even for him. He is trying to milk the fans for all he can, the board are not happy about that because that was an integral part of their plan.

They are never going to raise the full amount, certainly not quickly, but I believe he has said they can buy his shares in tranches so he could be getting regular payments from them for quite some time. 


Moving On Time?
John Clark 14th December 2020 at 17:13

I think BDO's £29m civil action against the administrator is more likely to bring out more of the truth than a botched criminal action by Crown Office as reported to them by Police Scotland.

BDO have taken their time, presumably investigated the matter properly and think they have enough to take the matter to the civil Courts. I would be surprised if they don't instruct top civil lawyers to carry out the action on their behalf. 

Bearing in mind BDO have probably already spent a lot of the money they have brought in, another £29m would be a nice wee addition to the pot.


Moving On Time?
John Clark 13th December 2020 at 14:02

 

One thing that still puzzles me is why, it seems, none of the other bidders to purchase the club to keep it going as a 'going concern' did not squeal at the time about the arbitrary selection of Green as the 'preferred' one who could pick up the assets cheap, while the club went into liquidation?

Why Green? why did the Administrators think that would best for them, for the creditors? A short bidding war for the assets would surely have raised at least a few tens of thousands more for the creditors.

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

Absolutely none of that was a factor in the administrator's decision making from what I can see. The creditors were irrelevant. 

They were working towards a pre-determined outcome involving Whyte and Green, There may have been a bit of improvisation when the CVA was rejected and Whyte was no longer required but other than that I firmly believe it was a pre-determined outcome. Let's wait and see what is determined by the ongoing proceedings. 

Remember the sale did not go ahead with the preferred bidder / chosen one. The assets were sold to another company with a very similar name, Sevco Scotland Ltd. No-one seems to ever have answered the question, when was that agreed. I believe novation requires all parties to agree to it. 

The aim was a CVA, a debt free Rangers, still the same club, still in the top division of the league etc.

When that was rejected and liquidation (ongoing) started there was a wee bit of the truth, then the re-writing of history, then where we are now. 

 


About the author