Towards a More Professional SFA

Avatar By

Allyjambo  March 30, 2017 at 21:45  Cluster OneMarch 30, 2017 at …

Comment on Towards a More Professional SFA by easyJambo.

Allyjambo  March 30, 2017 at 21:45 
Cluster OneMarch 30, 2017 at 19:55
I’d put it this way, if Celtic were selling a young player, their very best young player, or even if his contract was up and they were getting a nice development fee, that would be reported, high and wide in the SMSM, as a very big negative!
If TRFC are happy to see this young developing talent leave before the supporters have had a chance to see him play in the first team, something is very wrong!
And if their supporters see it as a positive…heaven help them!
I think it is clear that Rangers are keen to cash in on their talented youngster and there is nothing wrong in that as long as both the lad and his family are happy with the move. There is nothing that ties the lad to the club before he signs a full time contract.  I’m also sure that the sums involved are being inflated by the press coverage.

However, I do think that there is a valid comparison to be had with Celtic’s promotion of their, then 13 year old, talented youngster whose 7 minute participation as a substitute in an U20 match received widespread press coverage. I said at the time that I thought the coverage was exploitative and appeared to be designed to promote both Celtic’s Academy as well as initiate interest in a sell-on of the player two or three years down the road.  I’m certain his subsequent selection for both Scotland’s and England’s U16 squads was a direct result of the publicity the lad received.

I’m fortunate enough to have seen both players playing for Scotland U16s and their clubs in the last few weeks and I have my own views on their respective abilities, which is a topic that isn’t appropriate for discussion on the blog.

However, I would like to contrast the above with my own club’s handling of their talented youngsters. Over the last couple of seasons, Hearts have featured 14 year olds in their U20 line up with some regularity without a murmur in the press. Four players also appeared in the same Scotland U16 squad as the pair above. The first significant coverage they received was just in the past week, in the Edinburgh based papers, with the signing of eight current 15 and 16 year olds from the Academy on full time contracts for next season.  

Both Celtic and Rangers are masters of using the press to promote their brands and the value of their squads, young and old.  I don’t think it is a Rangers – good, Celtic – bad issue. 

easyJambo Also Commented

Towards a More Professional SFA
One for JC

The SFA have appointed a new “I am the SFA” representative to replace Darryl Broadfoot.  It is Greig Mailer, the current Head of Marketing and Commercial Operations at Hibs.

Towards a More Professional SFA
jimbo March 29, 2017 at 22:12
Apologies in advance if I have missed a key part of your conversations. Who are we talking about? Ian ????.

Towards a More Professional SFA
If I was a conspiracy theorist, the latest boardroom move could be a pre-cursor to closing down TRFC, but dressing it up as a solvent reconstruction (allowed under SFA articles).  The assets (including the team) would be taken under the control of RIFC, but any contracts held by TRFC would die as TRFC is dissolved.  RRL no more.

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