Whose assets are they anyway?

Avatar By

What’s the breaking story that KJ has latched onto? Hector Bartins …

Comment on Whose assets are they anyway? by easyJambo.

What’s the breaking story that KJ has latched onto?

Hector Bartins ‏@CarltonBartins
#Breaking – Big news on the way #Rangers #Sevco
https://mobile.twitter.com/carltonbartins/status/660078582543290368 …

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CSkR-OzW4AAepcl.png

keith jackson ‏@tedermeatballs 22m22 minutes ago
Last RT. #developing

keith jackson ‏@tedermeatballs · 18m18 minutes ago
So, we all ready for another Ashley v SFA court case? #developing

easyJambo Also Commented

Whose assets are they anyway?
Auldheid 13th November 2015 at 11:13 pm #
————————————————-
I had already read your post on CQN after you asked Jim Spence on Twitter for his views.

You have suggested an independent inquiry, which I think would have widespread support, but the difficulty I see is if the authorities say no. What then?

There is a thread on JKB, the main Hearts message board, asking whether or not Hearts should issue a statement, but in the main almost everyone, barring myself, appears to share the view that Hearts should not respond unless specifically named by a Rangers official or spokesman. (Hearts were only named by the Record)

It is also Hearts AGM on 3rd December, so I can see Ann Budge being asked her views there. As with Peter Lawwell, I think that it would be prudent to adopt a stance that acknowledges the situation, before the AGM, to minimise any discussion or protest, that could end up as the major story that comes out of the meeting. 

I hope that Peter Lawwell will already have canvassed the views of a number of clubs to gauge the collective mood, and not to isolate himself, or Celtic, resulting in the issue becoming a Celtic v Rangers matter.

One cautionary point re Hearts cooperating with Celtic is that Ann Budge was clearly unhappy with Celtic’s response to her complaint about vandalism at Tynecastle following the cup tie, last December.  Part of her response was to restrict sales of tickets to Celtic and other clubs (assisted by a high take up of STs by Hearts fans).  I don’t know if that relationship has thawed out as yet.  I hope it has, but I wouldn’t bank on it. 

Don’t take my last paragraph as Hearts being anti Celtic.  Ann Budge has just given life bans to 10 young Hearts neds for their behaviour inside and outside the ground. Hearts also assisted police in yesterday’s arrest of 14 young Killie supporters,  who caused a bit of a rammy in McLeod St just before a match a few weeks ago.  She is a woman with a mission.    


Whose assets are they anyway?
I think Celtic’s statement was published now, in part to avoid any awkward or multiple questions coming up at the AGM next week.  If anyone asks about it at the AGM, then they will simply be referred to today’s statement.  


Whose assets are they anyway?
STV Sport ‏@STVSport 45m45 minutes ago
Hampden Park and Tynecastle to host Scottish League Cup semi-finals

Another potential source of funds for King & Co. has gone awry.


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
================================
Cheers.
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

Avatar