Whose assets are they anyway?

Avatar By

Well, yesterday’s proceedings at the CoS to hear Rangers and …

Comment on Whose assets are they anyway? by melbournedee.

Well, yesterday’s proceedings at the CoS to hear Rangers and Charles Green argue over payment of Mr Green’s legal expenses certainly took an unexpected turn.
Who would have thought that Mr Wolffe’s main argument for rejecting Mr Green’s claim would centre around the timeline of when the everlasting “Rangers Football Club” transferred from Oldco to Newco!
I never expected anyone arguing for RIFC/TRFC to be raising in a court of law, the notion of how the Spirit/DNA/Lifeblood/Essence of “Rangers Football Club” transferred along with the assets. A high risk strategy I suggest!
If I have understood Mr Wolffe’s argument correctly, he is claiming that RIFC/TRFC are not liable to pay Mr Green’s legal costs because some of the charges he faces pre-date Mr Green becoming CEO of “Rangers Football Club”. His argument is that Mr Green only became CEO of “Rangers Football Club” when the assets (and the other mystical thingmybob) transferred from Oldco on 14th June 2012. Prior to this date, Mr Green was merely a Director of Sevco Scotland! This really does stretch the concept of Oldco/Newco to new unseen heights and in a court of law too.
Sevco Scotland was incorporated on 29th May 2012 with Mr Green as its sole director. So the arguments raised seem to be trying to establish a 2 week timeframe where Mr Green may have done some very naughty things, but they have nothing to do with the “Club”, so we aren’t paying.
I think that RIFC/TRFC could be in trouble with this line of reasoning as Lord Doherty was of the opinion that “you can’t have a contract with “The Rangers Football Club”.

melbournedee Also Commented

Whose assets are they anyway?
melbournedee 13th November 2015 at 10:53 am #

What I couldn’t understand was the effort to argue that there was a short 2 week period where Green was Director/CEO of the Company, but seemingly not of “The Rangers Football Club” as the assets (and that other thing) hadn’t yet transferred.
===================================================
Of course, this 2 week window would correspond with the D&P/Sevco 5088/Sevco Scotland switcheroo. Is that what this is all about? Still can’t see how that would absolve Sevco Scotland/TRFC from honouring the indemnity agreement.


Whose assets are they anyway?
wottpi 13th November 2015 at 10:31 am

Wottpi,

I agree with the argument that the Company (Sevco Scotland/TRFC) shouldn’t have to indemnify Mr Green for his actions prior to the company’s incorporation on 29th May 2012.

What I couldn’t understand was the effort to argue that there was a short 2 week period where Green was Director/CEO of the Company, but seemingly not of “The Rangers Football Club” as the assets (and that other thing) hadn’t yet transferred.

Green’s employment contract and agreement to indemnify his legal costs are with the Company, Sevco Scotland/TRFC, but yesterday’s argument in court seemed to be that the agreements are with the Club thingy and that didn’t exist/tranfer until 14th June 2012. In a legal setting, this argument seems bonkers to me!


Recent Comments by melbournedee

It Is Better To Offer No Excuse Than A Bad One
ALLYJAMBODECEMBER 22, 2017 at 13:11
Decision [130] For the above reasons in respect of the first issue I find in favour of the respondent, however, in respect to the second issue, I find in favour of the panel and grant the order sought. I reserve all questions of expenses
Could this be a door left open for an appeal?
—————————————————————————————————————
AJ,

The 2 issues considered by the court were:

1) What, on a proper construction of section 995 of the Act, is the ambit of the court’s discretion?

2) If the court has discretion to refuse the order, should the court in the exercise of that discretion refuse the order sought?

Issue 1 – The court agreed that it did have discretion.
Issue 2 – The court decided that it shouldn’t refuse the order an so the order is granted.

No wiggle room – DCK is stuffed


It Is Better To Offer No Excuse Than A Bad One
HOMUNCULUSDECEMBER 21, 2017 at 20:07
Yes but have you amortised those values EJ.
———————————————————–
Amortisation is a non-cash charge and doesn’t result in any cash flow benefit. From the 2016/17 accounts, the unpaid transfer costs at 30th June totalled £7.8 million.
That means Dave King’s promises to fund the club are less than the outstanding transfer costs and all other activities undertaken by the club will generate a positive cash flow, a proposition that I have great difficulty in believing.


Who Is Conning Whom?
Has the TOP issue finally hit? See the link below from the Rangers’s web site
https://rangers.co.uk/club/investor-centre/shareholder-centre/circulars-admission-document/
Please see via the undernoted links the Opening Position Disclosures and Dealing Disclosures received by Rangers International Football Club PLC (RIFC)  as required under Rule 8 of the City Code on Takeovers and Mergers.
Details of RIFC in respect of whom relevant securities Opening Position Disclosures and Dealing Disclosures must be made can be found in the Disclosure Table on the Takeover Panel’s website at www.thetakeoverpanel.org.uk, including details of the number of relevant securities in issue, when the offer period commenced and when any offeror was first identified. You should contact the Panel’s Market Surveillance Unit on +44 (0)20 7638 0129 if you are in any doubt as to whether you are required to make an Opening Position Disclosure or a Dealing Disclosure.
The Takeover Panel Executive has granted RIFC and Mr King a dispensation from the requirements under the Code that announcements must be published via a Regulatory Information Service (RIS).  Any Opening Position Disclosures and Dealing Disclosures required under Rule 8 of the Code may be made to Rangers by email to [companyenquiries@rangers.co.uk] and will be published on Rangers’ website at [https://rangers.co.uk/club/investor-centre/shareholder-centre/circulars-admission-document/].  A copy must also be sent to the Panel’s Market Surveillance Unit by email to monitoring@disclosure.org.uk.
Rule 8.3 Disclosures – Rangers International Football Club PLCRiver and Mercantile Asset Management LLP – LINKGlenmuir Limited – LINKMASH Holdings Limited – LINKClub 1872 Shares CIC – LINKAlIstair Murdoch McCoist – LINKAlexander Easdale and family – LINKMASH Holdings Limited Dealing Disclosure – LINKClub 1872 Shares CIC Dealing Disclosure 1 – LINKClub 1872 Shares CIC Dealing Disclosure 2 – LINKJulian Wolhardt’s Dealing Disclosure – LINK
Rule 8 Opening Position Disclosure:
Offeror
David Cunningham King – LINK
Offeree
Rangers International Football Club PLC – LINK


Enough is enough
Interesting that the accounts have been signed off by Dave King and the Auditors on 26th October.

So the day’s events must have been:

– Pedro Caixinha turns up to take training as usual in the morning
– Dave King signs off the accounts followed by the auditors
– Pedro Caixinha summoned to Ibrox to learn that he has been terminated as Rangers manager
– Too late to change the accounts, so no mention of the payouts due to Pedro and his team, no addition to he future funding requirements to be provided by NOAL and other investors.

Very convenient.


Enough is enough
EASYJAMBONOVEMBER 3, 2017 at 23:00 The costs of acquiring a player, plus his contract (wages) for the period of his contract, are recorded as “intangible assets”, e.g. if a player is bought for £1.5m, and is paid £500k a year for 3 years, then that player represents an intangible asset of £3m in the accounts (£1.5m + 3 x £500k).
——————————————————————————————————————Easy,

The future wages for the player won’t be included in the intangibles figure, only any “up front costs” that need to be paid to secure the contract, then amortised over the life of the contract or written off when the player leaves the club (e.g. Garner, whose remaining value will need to be charged to next year’s accounts).

The accounts specifically mention agents fees and I would expect sign-on bonuses would also be included.

Wages would be charged to the income statement as earned/paid.


About the author

Avatar