Whose assets are they anyway?

By

Aberdeen versus United was deemed too large for Tynecastle.  Can’t …

Comment on Whose assets are they anyway? by Smugas.

Aberdeen versus United was deemed too large for Tynecastle.  Can’t recall who was in the other semi 07

Joking apart, I would actually query why the Celtic County match has to be at Hampden.  Does that not give either club an advantage over the duo fighting it out at Tynecastle?  Is there not another stadium big enough for what one would assume would be the biggest semi final attendance? 

And further joking apart at least finally we have some common sense being shown – that two semis on the same pitch on consecutive days in Scotland in winter is asking for problems. 

Smugas Also Commented

Whose assets are they anyway?
Apologies but trying to keep lid of understanding on several pots at the moment.  Phil hints that a senior administrator had boobed by being involved in the F & P discussion whilst conflicted.  JJ then elaborates by inferring that his wife had RIFC shares.  Is that correct?  I remembered that CO’s wife was involved, but was it not to do with owning RFC plc (oldco) shares when he joined hearts (or possibly when he left to join the SFA).  Tell me my mind is playing tricks and that he had the wherewithal to keep the hell away from RIFC shares.  Please!


Whose assets are they anyway?
Take that back – it was the St Johnston cup semi 13-14 that was at Ibrox, the new firm semi 14-15 was indeed at Hampden.  I was even there 20 

Point on same pitch two days still stands though!


Whose assets are they anyway?
Sorry, just to add to the above a quick check on Paul McConville tells me that 13th June was the creditors meeting at which the CVA was voted down.  14th June was the onward sale to “Sevco.” Interestingly, the popular media reported it as something along the lines of “the business and assets of the club…”now pass to the sevco consortium (Charles Green) or words to that effect.  The “official” (and suffice it to say Paul had a picture of Chemical Ali on a dusty roof next to the link) RFC statement said “the Club and assets now pass to the sevco consortium” and then in a side note highlighted Greens involvement with Sevco Scotland and not 5088 as previously reported.

Therein’s the difference as claimed, but no-one seems to be able to say what the difference was!

And just to add – how far ahead of all of us (and particularly me) was Paul in all of this?


Recent Comments by Smugas

It Is Better To Offer No Excuse Than A Bad One
In fairness to the pundits.   To a man Tonight (considering the chopped off derby goal) they could not understand why the tele evidence instantly available to anyone with a phone couldn’t be used in that scenario.  


It Is Better To Offer No Excuse Than A Bad One
In simplistic terms, as far as the recipients were concerned, the monies were paid in net.  I.e. as far as they were concerned all tax payable had been deducted and paid. Billy Dodds said as much on the radio as I recall.  What SDM said in one of the hearings was that they took the monies that would otherwise have been deducted and forwarded for tax added it to the payment to the player.  Hence a player who would have received £60 wages and in addition had deducted £40 in cash to give a £100 total from any other club would have received the whole £100 from oldco.  This gave rise to the famous quote about “buying players they couldn’t otherwise afford.”

so the answer to your question is…both!

The reason for the confusion of course is because the players had side letters explaining all this but sssshhhhh, they’re secret.


It Is Better To Offer No Excuse Than A Bad One
So, square the circle.

1/  King told to make offer.  No guarantee of level of take up especially given that…
2/  Future security of club predicated on King Loan.
3/  King saying he can’t afford to make offer so would presumably have to resign.
4/  Potential that him resigning causes share loss (ignoring imminent dilution).  One would think that might tempt a few more to his offer. 
4/  Also small matter that regardless of whether he resigns or not, whether he offers and whether they take up his offer, the future security of the club is still predicated on his loan.
5/  If he’s not a director can he trust the board with his extended loan, especially given that…
6/  In case you haven’t spotted it this is a loss making business.  Extending that loan doesn’t staunch the flow it simply pours more in the top to be leaked.  Staunching the flow requires more profitable surroundings (a new CL bucket).  But that needs investment and then…..

Ok you get the rest!
 


It Is Better To Offer No Excuse Than A Bad One
FWIW I still don’t see any advantage to them in ‘eventing.’  Threatening to ‘event.’  Yes for sure. That’ll get all the Christmas coppers rattling in the buckets  since whilst they may look down their nose at a credible challenge for 2nd it would still be a great result for them and give them European access.  Interestingly of course so does 3rd (4th?).  As clubs like Aberdeen know its actually bloody expensive in relative terms being the plucky loser.  But I fear crowd indifference would kick in.  Aberdeen losing 2000 fans by accepting 3rd is no biggie.  Rangers losing 20,000 is a different barrel of kippers.  

The no-event assumption has two core requirements of course.

1/  All parties keep speaking to each other, ignore individual rationality and act instead for the greater good of the club (don’t start) particularly in view of….
2/  Somebody, somewhere has to pony up to keep the loss making bus on the road else it grinds to a halt in the race to the top.  Shouting and screaming and stamping their foot that its all so unfair unless all the other buses are told to stop too is unlikely to get a sympathetic hearing.  Well, not from the fans anyway…. 


It Is Better To Offer No Excuse Than A Bad One
Homunculus @ 12.38

My thoughts exactly.  The AGM stuff to me made sense to a/ get a hold of 1872’s ‘new’ money with zero repayment clause and b/ to tidy up the balance sheet with a view to a euro licence (listed you will recall as essential to the clumpany’s future well being) which will surely be scrutinised like never before.  It makes no sense for the creditors to do it (unless a billionaire has flown in off the radar offering more per share for their quantum than a simple loan repayment would yield i.e. parity*) and it makes even less sense to allow a situation where the creditors can individually decide whether to do so given the fragility of the underlying company(ies).  Particularly given the reputation of some of the principle creditors.  

* parity insofar as they’d get their money back.  It is not enough to promise growth on their shares in some future dream complete with CL soundtrack if achieving said dream is literally costing you money in the meantime in terms of shareholder calls. RBS being the most recent example to spring to mind.  


About the author