It has recently been suggested to me quite strongly by two separate Finance Industry experts that no matter the outcomes of the forthcoming criminal trials into the sale of Rangers and the subsequent disposal of the liquidated assets, it is highly unlikely that the sale will be reversed. In fact BDO (the liquidators of Rangers) see the path of least resistance to any remedy (if guilty verdicts are returned) through the professional indemnity insurance held by organisations involved (I am choosing my words carefully here to comply with the rules surrounding the court case).
There is of course still the dispute between the owners of Sevco 5088 and Sevco Scotland to consider (although depending on the outcome of the criminal cases, that may be moot).
On the face of it, all of this is good news for TRFC and Dave King. After all, one of the main problems they have been facing is the uncertainty over the ownership of the assets, and if BDO are swinging in the direction indicated above, King and his board are free to move forward – you would think.
The recent plans to raise cash from the fans is I think a smart one, but it is still a sticking plaster applied to a gunshot wound. Rangers already have a gate income which is the envy of not just most Scottish clubs, but clubs much further afield. Their problem is their astronomical fixed costs, their dilapidated infrastructure, and possible cash outflow through the fabled ‘onerous contracts’.
Even putting in place a severe austerity package (which may be unpalatable to fans being asked to part with their cash to buy off pesky shareholders who don’t share King’s vision) does not remove the need to capitalise urgently to repair the stadium and build a squad capable of competing in Scotland. So they need to raise cash, and they need it quickly – because soft loans cannot be provided forever.
So the share issue route is the obvious way to go, and to do that effectively, a listing on an exchange is required. However our sources in the financial world don’t think it is possible that this could happen with the current regime for the following reasons (not in order of importance);
- They have absolutely no credible business plan to move forward over the next five years – only a commitment to limping on with soft loans;
- The current chairman is a convicted felon;
- Two directors of the new company were directors of the company now in liquidation;
- They have no line of credit;
- They are already in debt to the tune of at least £12m – increasing as I write;
- They are unable to repay that debt;
- There is still a nominal (even if we accept the BDO position above) doubt over the ownership of assets;
- The football team does not play in the top league – and European income isn’t coming soon;
- The company have astronomical fixed costs which are way in excess of their income.
So even if the doubt over the ownership of assets is removed, there isn’t an easily navigable route for TRFC into calmer waters.
My own conclusion is that perhaps the biggest single thing that is holding Rangers back is Dave King. I really don’t know what his motivation is. There is speculation that he has his eyes on the increasing cash-pot and diminishing creditor list at the Oldco. Some Rangers bloggers are suggesting that a land-grab play is taking place. I think the former is far more plausible than the latter, but if we take his RRM credential at face-value, it seems to me that the Rangers-minded thing for him to do would be to reverse himself out of the position he is in.
That might enable the company to raise some of the cash they need to repair the stadium, rebuild the infrastructure within the club (players, management, youth and scouting etc.).
Are King, Taylor and Park really in this so they can indefinitely fork out £10m per year? Will Taylor and Park continue to ally themselves with King if he is the impediment to inward investment that we think he is? Park will most certainly not, and my information, from sources very close to him, is that he is done.
The fractures in KingCo are beginning to appear, and King himself may come under increasing pressure to do what is best for the future of the club, which is to remove himself from the equation and allow those better placed to take it forward.
It is often speculated elsewhere that SFM is a Celtic blog, and even those who give us credit for being a much broader church than that will still insist that we are anti-Rangers, obsessed with Rangers, and out to get Rangers.
The occasional outburst of Schadenfreude from commenters aside (it IS a football forum after all guys) SFM is quite definitely not editorially anti-Rangers.
I think the evidence shows that we are nothing of the kind, and it doesn’t do Rangers any favours to conflate our position on the corrupt nature of the governance of the game with that of the Ibrox club – new or old. Where we do discuss Rangers (as we have in this article), it is with an acknowledgment that the money flying around in football makes all of our clubs vulnerable to the kind of rip-off merchants who have wandered in and out of Ibrox in the past few years.
There are many areas where the SFM consensus is unpalatable to Rangers fans. But protecting all of our clubs and their fans from mismanagement is hopefully not one of them.
Also, despite the many rivalries within the game, Rangers are an important focus (old club or new) for tens of thousands of fans. As such they are of interest to ALL of us who support football in this country. Anyway, I tend to be more obsessive about my own club – and find it rather easier to be objective about others 🙂
My own preference in moving the debate forward is to get the perspective of Rangers fans on these issues. I am ever hopeful that we can have Rangers fans engage with the blog and look for areas where we have common purpose.
Nobody at SFM wants Rangers fans to have no team to support. Nobody here wants the SFA to stay unregulated and unaccountable. Nobody at SFM wants people to make up rules they go along just for the sake of a few quid. I can’t believe that Rangers fans don’t share those values.
I agree that Rangers fans are victims of this affair to a large extent, but the culprits are quite definitely not us at SFM. They need to look closer to home to find them.
I’m very conscious of the SFM’s reputation for being helpful. In that vein I thought I should perhaps try and spare a certain club the embarrassment of not having a name or acronym to use when fulfilling upcoming fixtures (for a second time too!) should they have any ‘technical’ IP issue. Perish the thought of course….
First attempts noted below. I’m sure we can all come up with some others?
SFA FC (surely this can be used as this body is largely inactive?) – Stop Forced Administration
DCK FC – Donate Cash Kwikly
G£IB FC – Get Pounds In Bank
FRC FC – Fecked R*ngers Clumpany
OC/NC FC – Oh Crumbs, No Cash
Over to you guys….
Scottish Football needs more acronyms like a HITH.
stevo 30th October 2015 at 11:25 am
” if such a hypothetical event came to pass, the SPFL would surely need to take some action to protect the integrity of the competition. ”
————————————————————————————–
Ashley seems like the kind of guy who covers all bases, but I bet he has over-looked grabbing the IP for “Club 12”
A club 12 sandwich would probably not sell as well as a pie in a Sevco serviette though.
On a more serious note, I expect a C&D would also extend itself to all stadium signage furnishings, carpets etc, along with programmes, and ticketing. Not too mention Club 12 Bear.
Did any sponsors sign up to be associated with Club 12? …Coughing up would probably be the cheaper option
If certain logos are ‘redacted’, I fully expect most, or all, main stream media reports to ignore this or to put it in such a way as to blame it on an ‘unreasonable’ Mike Ashley, rather than blaming the obstinate human that remotely operates the role of chairman of a company that owns the company that operates the football club in question. He being the one, presumably, who chose not to comply with the terms of a loan agreement.
“SFA FC (surely this can be used as this body is largely inactive?) – Stop Forced Administration”
This should of course read “SFA – Surely Facing Administration”
Apologies…..
Scottish Football needs a strong Arbroath.
Granted that the cease and desist on using TRFC IP is just speculation at this stage, but hopefully the IP does not include the shirt designs in total otherwise the team might not have any strips that were not registered with the SPFL under rules G29-36.
anyhoo I’m sure that even if this did transpire, the fine would be a discretionary one, and strangely that section of the rules dont seem to have any penalty specified, so there might not be any repercussions at all….dont be telling me the SPFL have no foresight!
Where are the riffs on the emperor has no clothes?
These could be fruitful for entertainment value.
Flocculent Apoidea 30th October 2015 at 12:43 pm #If certain logos are ‘redacted’, I fully expect most, or all, main stream media reports to ignore this or to put it in such a way as to blame it on an ‘unreasonable’ Mike Ashley, rather than blaming the obstinate human that remotely operates the role of chairman of a company that owns the company that operates the football club in question. He being the one, presumably, who chose not to comply with the terms of a loan agreement.
========================
A lot of online sites were atill using the old badge, even though the photo next to it showed players sporting the interwoven lettered crest. Even the SPFL site were doing it until recently. The old badge is prevalent on the superstore site (presumably RR owned), whereas the club (TRFC Ltd) site uses the interwoven badge as used on the shirts.
Sky Sports and BBC Sport are staying “loyal” to the old badge, although when you read their output, it’s hardly surprising as they are paid up founding members of the LD myth cult. http://www.skysports.com/football/hibernian-vs-rangers/342326 http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/34564992
http://www.skysports.com/football/news/11788/10047526/rangers-boss-mark-warburton-targets-premiership-signings being a classic example from Sky yesterday.
Do TRFC now have any rights to use the old RFC badge at all, or are they only licenced to use the RFC interwoven letters under the SD/RR/TRFC contract? Or is that information covered by the confidentiality clauses?
The intrepid ‘journalist’ Gary Keown was given ample assistance by SFA’s Stewart Regan to ask some SFA related follow up questions…but Gary kept on missing the ‘sitters’…
Extracted from his ET article today;
===========
…“I think [Platini] has damaged his reputation by becoming embroiled in this issue. It is going to be a long way back for him, but it is important that he has the chance to clear his name and it is important for all of us to understand the facts and what has gone on…”
What about Regan’s rancid reputation amongst Scottish football fans Gary ?
“Once we get more information from the [FIFA] Ethics Committee investigation, we, as a board, will be able to decide what we do, but, at the moment, it is a shambles, quite honestly. What’s going on at the top of the game is tarnishing football’s reputation.”
Erm, well what about the SFA’s tarnished reputation amongst Scottish football fans Gary ?
“Gianni [Infantino] is a credible candidate,” he said…”He is capable of leading the game, though.”
Yes, but Infantino has been UEFA General Secretary since 2009 – and is Platini’s right hand man. Is there not some additional risk with supporting this candidate – and would it have been more encouraging for Scottish football fans to see the SFA supporting a fresh face to change the culture at FIFA ?
Gary, Gary are you there…?
===================
Not one follow up question about the SFA itself.
Gary seems to have done the usual, copy/paste job, courtesy of ex-Herald sports ‘journalist’ Darryl Broadfoot.
Dreadful.
Alex McLeish: a thought
It would seem to me that there have been some dark mutterings lately among the Celtic support about the suitability of the current manager (who did the league & league cup double last season).
It would further seem that asking someone who was in a similar position about the pressure, or possible outcome, is legitimate. (Note: McLeish won titles, domestic cups and got Rangers into the UCL last 16 but was still deemed ‘not good enough’.)
Clearly, certain Rangers fans have done themselves no favours in recent years by writing off anything said by the Celtic-minded and other ‘haters’. Repeating that error from the other direction would be a thoroughly bad idea. It would seem to me.
Phil’s latest – if I read it correctly – implies that it’s now split Murray & Gilligan v. King & Letham ?
And he quotes that the GBP5M was needed ‘apparently’ for October payroll, plus Nov/Dec.
Doesn’t sound like Ashley is going to be putting his hand in his own pocket again.
Can anyone confirm if October wages have been paid then ?
[IIRC, 27th of the month is payday – i.e. Tuesday. No noise so assume it was paid ?]
Latest from PMG sets out his understanding of what has been going on between RIFC and SD/MA. Pretty much in line with what JJ has been saying about the IP/assets issue with a bit of additional reportage on the various interactions between the parties.
Scottish Football needs a strong Arbroath.
PS Sorry StevieBC – postings crossed in the mail!
And my reading (of Phil) for what it is worth is that Murray went to Ashley with an offer that he and Gilligan would jettison DCK in return for cash and promise to play nice with Llambias & co. Suggestion also of a reconfigured RRL, and not in a good way.
I don’t quite follow what he is suggesting that Letham hoped to achieve in his alleged follow up visit post Murray but I took from it the suggestion that, well, that his (Letham’s) offer was, er, slightly different and possibly made reference to the contents of the cease and desist missive that is apparently being pursued.
It is neither the rock, nor the waters fault, when the harshness of winter causes the small fracture to develop into an irreparable split.
Latest from Phil Macgiollabhain.
http://www.philmacgiollabhain.ie/a-thwarted-emissary/
Folks,
Whatabouttery, whether it takes the form of refereeing decisions or managers’ continued employment prospects, is off-limits – and you all know that …
I also observe that whilst still teaching, it took me all day to get time to read the blog.
Having spent all day every day this week at SFM Central, I don’t think I’ve been able to sit down and read it before around this time. Leaving to get the train at 6.45pm, and still no’ a dish washed 🙁
.. and still no reply from any of our excellent football club PR departments.
Nice wee podcast BP! Happy to discover it as I was on the move today. Made the short journey even shorter.
I like the look at the papers. Good starting point. One of my favourite programmes on radio used to be Paper Talk. Hosted by JT it was quite candid at times and the nearest they (the MSM) ever got to self-critique.
A bit of audio foam might be in order to cut down the boominess. Serious podcasts deserve optimal audio quality and that’s down to actual recording locale as well as equipment.
Bravo!
Thanks DP. It was a bit rushed and sounds scrappy to my ears, but it is content which is useful to have. Aiming for two per week from next week.
Don’t post much but i wonder where Phil gets so much detail regards meeting and he says she says . Could be totally wrong here but i cant help thinking its from the ashley camp.
I don’t normally react to this sort of thing, but completely disgusted at Al Lamont and Reporting Scotland by their reporting of RD’s press conference.
tamjartmarquez I suspect you will be pulled again and so consequently this but I think the post you have twice referred to is this
which was posted by wottpi. I may be doing him/her a disservice but the”us” is a bit of a giveaway. wottpi certainly is more leaning towards the Jambos than Celtic if not an out and out fan of the former. I’ve only seen brief shots of the goal but I believe Griffiths ran behind the goal on the side where the Celtic support were gathered and then to avoid a collision with the barriers had to divert left or right. In either case he was going to end up infront of Hearts support. Hand to ear is a regular response of goalscorers at away grounds but doesn’t always end in cautions.
Thanks Tykebhoy, I suggest you may be correct re another post removal. However I believe my point is just.
I was aware of the ‘us’, and indeed acknowledged WOTTPI and A.N.OTHER, in my response to Highlander, for balance.
Griffiths of course did not change direction to avoid the barrier at the second goal, where indeed his momentum carries him into the hoarding.
However optics is physics no matter what colour lens you view it through.
tjm it was also UptheHoops. wottpi dealt with it delicately as even without the physics lesson we know that momentum didn’t really take Griffiths to where he ended up. There has been some argument as to what next a caution every time you score because, unless its against a respected former club, it will always elicit some celebration no matter how muted. Highlander’s comment has also been removed presumably because it wasn’t so much a debate point but an outright statement. With hindsight I think support of that rather than the lighthearted exploration of momentum is what did for your post
My attention was caught earlier today by an article in the ‘Scotsman’ by one Arveen Arabshahti,solicitor, who it appears, is ‘pro bono’ adviser to the Scottish Football Supporters Association.
The article is about the hopes of the SFSA that it will fill ‘ … the gap and enable Scots fans to have a stronger influence…’
It goes on to say ‘that the [the new association] will be seeking to persuade the Scottish Football Association to get behind the new fans organisation to help it grow and prosper’.
Then, with unconscious irony it goes on to say: “With world football severely tainted by allegations of corruption and cronyism at its highest level and the game in Scotland becoming increasingly less accessible to many fans the time is right for a fresh approach…”
It would appear that the SSFA is happy to accept the Big Lie that Scottish Football is now predicated upon, and desperate enough to abandon principle in hoped-for support from the unprincipled.
I will not be joining such an organisation, however many articles Mr Arabshahti gets printed in the ‘Scotsman’.
The Cat NR1 30th October 2015 at 2:44 pm #
Do TRFC now have any rights to use the old RFC badge at all, or are they only licenced to use the RFC interwoven letters under the SD/RR/TRFC contract? Or is that information covered by the confidentiality clauses?
———————-
And are they breaking any liquidation rules?
http://rangers.co.uk/news/headlines/update-on-funding/
The Cat NR1 30th October 2015 at 2:44 pm # Do TRFC now have any rights to use the old RFC badge at all, or are they only licenced to use the RFC interwoven letters under the SD/RR/TRFC contract? Or is that information covered by the confidentiality clauses?———————-And are they breaking any liquidation rules?
=================================
JJ provided this list
https://www.ipo.gov.uk/tmownerid/search?domain=1&id=48839&app=1&name=SPORTSDIRECT&postcode
Leaves “Hello I’m a Gers player” logo methinks.
OK What kind of fuddery is this:
Friday, 30 October 2015, 20:00by Rangers Football Club
Share:
After careful consideration the Board has determined that it is not appropriate to proceed with a share issue and listing on the ISDX market until the criminal proceedings being brought against Charles Green, Imran Ahmed, Craig Whyte and others are concluded.
The Board is satisfied that from a financial perspective there is no short term requirement for the funding that would have flowed from a share issue and that any funds that may be required for the Group will be made available as and when required from the existing shareholder / lenders.
Dave King, Douglas Park, George Letham and George Taylor have reaffirmed their commitment to making further loan facilities available to Rangers International Football Club PLC (RIFC) on the same no fees and no interest basis as the existing loan facilities and have also confirmed the continuation of the existing facilities which they are providing to RIFC on the same basis.
The facilities to be made available more than cover the projected shortfall for this Season and beyond. The Board further understand that additional facilities can be made available as and when required for investment in the team. Any such investment will be reviewed on a case by case basis in accordance with prior statements.
The Group’s accounts will be circulated to shareholders for approval in the next few days.
The lenders have indicated that, at an appropriate juncture, they would be prepared to convert their loans into share capital. To facilitate this, a resolution will be presented to the AGM to permit shares to be issued by RIFC on a non pre-emptive basis. The Board would like to see this resolution passed but this is not a condition of funding being made available. The resolution will be a special resolution and would require the support of 75% of those shareholders voting at the AGM. The Board recognises that funding of the sort being provided by its shareholder / lenders would more naturally be made available as an equity investment and believes it would be in the best interests of RIFC’s shareholders if the loans could be converted.
————————————————–
Lets jut say Dave wants your money but has no nada idea how to get it.
Meanwhile at the courts——-
Total nonsense.
jean7brodie 30th October 2015 at 8:22 pm #
____
Good spot, Jean.
A kind of shaming statement for a Board to have to make, but I’ll need to wait for our finance experts to turn it into something that even I might actually understand fully!
I think we are seeing a merging of the narratives from those with ears in the camps (RIFC and SD)
Those ideas/narratives/intelligencies are rapidly converging and very much firming up (given the above referenced piece of nonsense).
Someone with a Rangers heart it seems paid the wages in Oct (or not) depending on which narrative you believe.
Given there has been no outbreak on twitter either the money was available or said bear chinned up.
I don’t believe Decembers is achievable and possibly not November. Too much legal expense on the horizon.
Whatever. I was sceptical about money running out up until DCK turning up this week and my conclusion:
I’m now in the its gone again camp.
Just my take.
The RIFC statement – my thoughts :
1. “…it is not appropriate to proceed with a share issue and listing on the ISDX market…”
A recognition of reality and what the internet bampots have been saying for some time.
2. “…until the criminal proceedings being brought against Charles Green, Imran Ahmed, Craig Whyte and others are concluded.”
Which will be years away….
3. “….no short term requirement for the funding that would have flowed from a share issue…”
One would hope not.
4. “….any funds that may be required for the Group will be made available as and when required from the existing shareholder / lenders. Dave King, Douglas Park, George Letham and George Taylor have reaffirmed their commitment to making further loan facilities available to Rangers International Football Club PLC (RIFC) on the same no fees and no interest basis as the existing loan facilities and have also confirmed the continuation of the existing facilities which they are providing to RIFC on the same basis.”
Making a virtue out of necessity – without these undertakings CD would have most likely have had to place a ‘going concern’ warning in the accounts.
5. “The Group’s accounts will be circulated to shareholders for approval in the next few days.”
What joyous anticipation there must be amongst shareholders.
6. “The lenders have indicated that, at an appropriate juncture, they would be prepared to convert their loans into share capital. To facilitate this, a resolution will be presented to the AGM to permit shares to be issued by RIFC on a non pre-emptive basis.”
Can they get the required 75%? What is happening over the shareholdings stripped of voting rights?
Many things missing from this update though :
– What about the SD litigation mentioned in DCK’s previous statement?
– Repayment of the SD/MA loan to regain IP and property ownership?
– Progress on wresting RRL income from SD?
– Confirmation that the clumpany has insurance cover for CG’s legal costs?
The statement tells us little that we did not already know. Outside finance via a share sale or third party lending is very much off the agenda. The 3Bs look to have caught a falling knife, as they say.
Doubtless the SMSM will be all over this with appropriate questions. Stuff like, “Just how good is Warburton?”
Scottish Football needs a strong Arbroath.
I can only think this evening’s statement is an absurd attempt to convince the auditors not to include a going concern qualification. It will only work if the auditors didn’t see the disappearing credit line in the first year financial statements and the unlikely to be repeated SD cash injection that got the 2nd year statements approved. 3rd time lucky, I should coco!
It will be interesting to see how the auditors treat the SD loan. If it is now repayable on demand due to alleged breaches of the loan agreement and there is no letter of comfort from SD that they will not seek such repayment then that must have a fairly serious impact on cashflow forecasts.
CD will also be aware of past undertakings on shareholder financial support that apparently disappeared during the course of the financial year. Allegedly.
Scottish Football needs the financial hacks to start getting involved as this is way beyond the radar capability of the sports stenographers.
Building up to a “big bad man widnae gee us more money and another wan made us pay lawyers and isdx windy entertain it us – in light of these the games a bogey and hee haw for us to do but run away home” the King is in the altogether he’s altogether as naked as the day that he was born to paraphrase Danny Kaye…
I read it the same way red Lichtie.
On the good side it pleads for going concern approval. Alternately in the event a big nasty lender asks for his cash back he will now be met with chick young esque squeaks about “how come when the other investors are so happy to put in more.”
to be filed alongside – the debt was coming down and – the administrators were looking out for the creditors and – the SFA have it in for us.
ianagain 30th October 2015 at 8:27 pm #
THANKS FOR THAT
JJ provided this listhttps://www.ipo.gov.uk/tmownerid/search?domain=1&id=48839&app=1&name=SPORTSDIRECT&postcodeLeaves “Hello I’m a Gers player” logo methinks.
How supposed “big” outfits fu up.=====
http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2013/09/10-things-you-may-not-have-known-about-lehman-brothers/
I’m wondering?
OK no exact parallel but how many of the event’s below parallel oor wee narrative in Scotland. You may deduct billions from the moneys mentioned here.
A bit of fun with a pointer maybe.
People in bold our known commentators and interactions.
1. At the Ira Sohn Investment Research Conference in May 2008, hedge fund manager David Einhorn explained why he believed Lehman Brothers was insolvent. At the time, Lehman was already significantly off its highs but still trading above $40.
RTC
2. Lehman’s accounting was especially opaque, even relative to other investment banks (and that’s really saying something). Their Level 3 assets were described as “mark-to-make-believe.” The firm was especially evasive when asked for hard numbers for its liabilities. After the collapse of Bear Stearns they were the next obvious bank to collapse. They were smaller, more heavily leveraged and with greater exposure to the mortgage market. Even a cursory review of Lehman’s books revealed lots of red flags.
RTC
3. The WSJ pointed out the complicity of Lehman’s accountants in their collapse. Management chose to “disregard or overrule the firm’s risk controls on a regular basis,” even as the credit and real-estate markets were showing signs of strain. In May 2008, a Lehman Sr VP alerted management about accounting irregularities, a warning ignored by Lehman auditors Ernst & Young.
RTC
4. The infamous REPO 105 — a fraudulent accounting gimmick that temporarily removed over $50 billion in securities inventory from its balance sheet — existed for the sole purpose of hiding liabilities from shareholders. By creating a materially misleading picture of the firm’s financial condition in late 2007 and 2008, Lehman’s management and its accountants were engaging in fraud. This also suggests that LEH was much more leveraged and at far greater risk for insolvency than was realized at the time (So, no, short-sellers did not kill Lehman).
RTC
5. Warren Buffett made an offer to Lehman, one that turned out to be more generous than the offer later accepted by Goldman Sachs. (One may surmise that Fuld’s rejection of Buffett’s bid was the last straw as far as the Fed and Treasury were concerned. If they were unwilling to help themselves, why should the taxpayer write another $30 billion check?)
Sarver
6. Many potential suitors kicked the tires at Lehman – but none could get past their massive liabilities or their opaque accounting. Too many toxic assets on books that were untrustworthy led to no serious buyer appearing.
Sarver et all
7. Once Lehman filed for bankruptcy, Barclays scooped up most of the U.S. and U.K. operations—without any of that toxic junk paper to worry about. Nomura Securities took over Lehman’s Asian operations.
Green
8. Neuberger Berman had been bought by Lehman Brothers in the 1990s. Its management purchased the wealth management unit post bankruptcy. They essentially bought themselves back at a huge discount.
DCK?
9. Lehman Brothers CEO Dick Fuld was wildly over-compensated. A Harvard study calculated that Fuld earned $522.7 million from 2000 to 2007. He garnered $461.2 million of that from selling 12.4 million shares of Lehman. (BusinessWeek)
DCK no hes an idiot
10. Lehman Brothers was dissolved 158 years after its founding.
??
It’s been a long day so just catching up.
Wary of BPs warning but to reiterate Griffith’s had a spontaneous celebration. It just happened to be in front of the Jambo’s who had been giving him stick.
His mistake was going back to then celebrate for a second time in front of the Celtic fans.
As I said nothing offensive but the move back towards own fans led Beaton to book him for excessive celebrations , time wasting and not returning to field of play as soon as possible when the other 21 players and the officials were heading back for the restart
Ridiculous IMHO but that’s the way it is these days.
I note the discussions and statements re the required finance down Govan way.
Regardless of how it turns out the key fact is surely that even with RRM at the helm the football operation spends more than it brings in and there is no obvious new or increased revenue stream on the horizon that means that come this time in 2016, 2017 etc etc multi millions will be required once again
In fact if Premiership football is achieved it is likely costs will increase and the month when the cash runs out will be even earlier.
Unless a true sugar daddy comes along it is not sustainable.
My take on the above is that the shareholder guarantees are required in order to get the accounts signed off.
The early publication of the accounts (they don’t need to be published until the end of December) may mean that any new loans taken up in the next few days will not be disclosed, nor the quantum of them.
Nope
This latest nonsense statement smacks of desperation ahead of the upcoming CG fees case on 12 Nov
It strongly suggests
Cash is dwindling fast and probably is insufficient to cover the Nov payroll
The Auditors know it and won`t sign off the year end accounts
Although Ashley has threatened to call up his £5m loan he hasn`t actually done so but has given notice of lengthy expensive litigation concluding with a demand for repayment
PlanA
The Board want SD to call up their loan ASAP so they can rush to Admin and blame it all on MA.
They think Ashley has a limited window to call up his loan
Meaning
If he intends to take control via Admin he needs to move before the Jan transfer window ends to enable more NUFC duds to be offloaded to Ibrox
PlanB
The Board want CG to win his court case so they can rush to Admin and blame it all on him.
…………………………………
Both PlanA and PlanB limit the prospect of the current Board pouring real money down the ibrox drain. Of the two the Board would prefer PlanA but they can`t make it happen. Ashley controls the timing
This “promise” about funding through loans to the end of the season is, at best, a naive effort to persuade shareholders to vote for dilution at the AGM. At worst it is a glib and shameless lie unworthy of at least 3 of the 4 named lenders
PlanB is much more likely to happen
I fully expect today`s statement to be swept away if and when CG wins his court case and RIFC are directed to pay his legal fees. It will turn out to be meaningless and irrelevant which is why I reckon it smacks of short termism and desperation
Admin before Xmas is looming
If RIFC gets the 75% approval for debt to equity conversions at the AGM, I’ll be interested to see at what the conversion price will be, as it can be used to dilute other shareholders into insignificance if the price is low enough.
Exactly when are the RIFC accounts due. I hear overdue since 1st October and December from others?
ianagain 30th October 2015 at 11:54 pm #Exactly when are the RIFC accounts due. I hear overdue since 1st October and December from others?
===================
31st December. The earlier date would have applied had they still been a listed company on AIM
At what price will the diluted shareholders head to court. I presume some have already sent instructions.I certainly would given DCKs record I would be eying an easy win.
ianagain 31st October 2015 at 12:07 am #
At what price will the diluted shareholders head to court. I presume some have already sent instructions.I certainly would given DCKs record I would be eying an easy win.
==============================
The price may well be whatever it takes to dilute the MASH holding below 5%. If they did that, then it would prevent MASH calling an EGM, notwithstanding any resultant court action.
Thanks Easyjambo. nice to deal with a professional.
ianagain 30th October 2015 at 11:54 pm
‘Exactly when are the RIFC accounts due. ‘
_______________
Does this help, ianagain?( from companies house webcheck)
Accounting Reference Date: 30/06Last Accounts Made Up To: 30/06/2014 (GROUP)Next Accounts Due: 31/12/2015Last Return Made Up To: 16/11/2014Next Return Due: 14/12/2015
Oops, I didn’t ‘refresh’, ianagain.
The statement claims that it is the court case which prevents them from pursuing a listing on the ISDX. But they were trying to get listed months before the court case even existed so what was wrong then?
y4rmy 31st October 2015 at 12:23 am # The statement claims that it is the court case which prevents them from pursuing a listing on the ISDX. But they were trying to get listed months before the court case even existed so what was wrong then?
==============================
Well where can I begin.
No Nomad.
No money.
Convicted criminal chairman.
No auditor.
No accounts.
Enough?
easyJambo 31st October 2015 at 12:14 am #
‘..The price may well be whatever it takes to dilute the MASH holding below 5%. ‘
____________
Not to ask you for a tutorial on the subject,eJ, but I’m not entirely sure I’m really understanding this.
Is it the case that if the Board get the ‘disapplication of pre-emptive rights’ resolution passed, then only selected individuals are allowed to buy shares, millions of them, at say, .0001p, so that they are in a position to outvote all the other shareholders put together?
Would other big shareholders not have to be nuts to allow such a thing to happen, even in well-run companies which don’t have a convicted criminal as their Chairman?
But is that the general idea?
John Clark 31st October 2015 at 12:17 am # ianagain 30th October 2015 at 11:54 pm‘Exactly when are the RIFC accounts due. ‘_______________Does this help, ianagain?( from companies house webcheck) Accounting Reference Date: 30/06Last Accounts Made Up To: 30/06/2014 (GROUP)Next Accounts Due: 31/12/2015Last Return Made Up To: 16/11/2014Next Return Due: 14/12/2015
Ta JC
I do like a wee Xmas joke for the early office parties and this should prove multi hilarious. So looking forward to it.
Should make the company preparing it and its employees bonuses which might stretch till the 18th.
easyJambo 30th October 2015 at 11:32 pm # If RIFC gets the 75% approval for debt to equity conversions at the AGM, I’ll be interested to see at what the conversion price will be, as it can be used to dilute other shareholders into insignificance if the pricie is low enough.
————————————————————
If achievable sounds like ,looks like, quacks like, a classic DCK swervarooonie.
Deflector shields up if I owned any.
So he burns it to the ground with his mad statements. Builds it back with his usual nonsense, has the “New fan board” build it back up and cashes in?
The thing is I don’t think he will get away with it this time as the bampots have him lined up.
Just how bizarre would it be that the erstwhile Rangers chairman spent circa 500k in legal fees pursuing lost causes (with more to come) while berating Green a bona fide former officer of the same company for receiving the support underwritten by said company .
Well I am off to the clinic to be checked out for posting alone, see you when its busier.
I assume we may see a move from those who had voting rights removed, to have them re-instated rather than miss the vote
Buying a few more shares privately, with no funds going to the club, will probably not deter Ashley too much when it comes to keeping his percentage up and counter dilution, so it looks like game on again with regards voting counts.
Will Mick keep his powder dry and wait until the expected AGM to have a C&D served in the gazebo, or possibly have a pal with shares appear with a list of difficult questions?
I feel a de-railing coming on, and a loco steaming out of a siding at the most inopportune moment. ……I can hear the tootin’ of the whistle. it’s Ashley at the throttle of the cannonball express.
Brace! Brace! Brace!
redlichtie 30th October 2015 at 9:07 pm
——–
Thanks @Red (and others) for the near instant reviews of Statement O’Clock. Helps shed some light on what seems an oddly timed PR release.
It’s certainly led to much rejoicing in tweetland among the Ibrox support, which probably shows that they were genuinely concerned. I find it hard to credit that Letham, Park & co are willing to flush mair money doon the lavvy, sorry, put more of their hard-earned at risk. Still, fitba loyalties make people do the most unexpected things.
But whither Dave King and the Warchest of the Temple of Doom?
Essentially, the board are going to ‘provide loans’ for shares but in the meantime are going to be taking money from the fans groups. These groups have spent a great deal building up around a 10% share in the club, which the board are now planning to dilute down to meaningless.
Will the fans grasp that or will their ‘leaders’ just crash on blindly and pump money into the machine?
My apologies to the mods for the post which was removed yesterday. At the risk of having this post similarly deleted, I’d like to emphasise that my intent wasn’t to highlight a poor refereeing decision – my comment was designed to highlight, in a sarcastic way, how we can all be guilty of displays of prolonged outrage when such an incident disadvantages our own team, yet we are conveniently silent when our team profits from the same or similar.
Highlander 31st October 2015 at 8:16 am #My apologies to the mods for the post which was removed yesterday. At the risk of having this post similarly deleted, I’d like to emphasise that my intent wasn’t to highlight a poor refereeing decision – my comment was designed to highlight, in a sarcastic way, how we can all be guilty of displays of prolonged outrage when such an incident disadvantages our own team, yet we are conveniently silent when our team profits from the same or similar.
=================================
Good morning Highlander. I guess what kicked this off was wottpi referring to Griffiths being booked for celebrating against Hearts. There was no mention of any other incident in the game. I then responded by saying Referees are inconsistent regarding booking players for goal celebrations. I made no mention of Celtic being singled out in this regard. You then responded saying Nir Bitton should have had a second yellow card in the game. I then responded pointing out Hearts had benefited a similar way the last time the clubs met. All a bit pointless I suppose but ultimately harmless.
Basically the plan to save RIFC is base on the shareholders voting to remove their own pre-emption rights. So that certain people can buy into a rights issue, diluting everyone else’s holding.
So it can’t happen until the next general meeting, which in real terms can’t happen until the audited accounts are released, then a period of at least 30 days (from memory) has passed.
I can only infer from this that the audited accounts are going to be released very soon. Or that they are going to pass a special resolution based on a poll on followfollow.
There’s no way of getting away from it, the whole thing is a flustered cluck.
Last word on the matter.
My post the theGriffith’s yellow card was not about the rights or wrong of it.
The point I was making was that the contributors to Sportsound were waxing lyrical about the whole incident but, from my eye witness account, they totally had the thing back to front. I.e they somehow thought LG celebrated with Celtic fans then went on to taunt the Jambo’s.
Therefore their discussion was somewhat meaningless!!! My question was what else may they be getting mixed up over??
Homunculus 31st October 2015 at 9:44 am #Basically the plan to save RIFC is base on the shareholders voting to remove their own pre-emption rights. So that certain people can buy into a rights issue, diluting everyone else’s holding.
So it can’t happen until the next general meeting, which in real terms can’t happen until the audited accounts are released, then a period of at least 30 days (from memory) has passed.
I can only infer from this that the audited accounts are going to be released very soon. Or that they are going to pass a special resolution based on a poll on followfollow.
There’s no way of getting away from it, the whole thing is a flustered cluck.
===============================
A very good observation and one that would be a good starting point for a trainee journalist. No doubt someone from the DR or ESJ has read that and when the Ibrox Franchise has run out of cash before a meeting has been convened, they will claim that they were onto it from the start.
What a waste of space the SMSM are. Ronny Deila gave them a wee warning shot yesterday, but they appear to be in some kind of bizarre suicide pact with DK. They’d better wake up and smell the coffee some time soon as there is a large iceberg looming and they’re acting as though they are the band still playing while Captain DK Smith is on the bridge of unsinkable ship.
I’ve been fortunate enough to avoid lawyers wherever possible. I do however know that to say say to them at the start of the “biggest case of the century” that the shareholders will provide ample for now and into the foreseeable future is possibly not their smartest move.
y4rmy 31st October 2015 at 12:23 am #The statement claims that it is the court case which prevents them from pursuing a listing on the ISDX. But they were trying to get listed months before the court case even existed so what was wrong then?
===============================================
The statement is correct as it stands, taken in isolation from any other factors.
However, taking a Bryson approach to things, as no-one in the MSM asked how the plan for listing was going prior to the court case, those factors therefore can’t now be taken into consideration as an issue, thus leaving only the court case to blame. QED.
scottc 31st October 2015 at 7:35 am #Essentially, the board are going to ‘provide loans’ for shares but in the meantime are going to be taking money from the fans groups. These groups have spent a great deal building up around a 10% share in the club, which the board are now planning to dilute down to meaningless. Will the fans grasp that or will their ‘leaders’ just crash on blindly and pump money into the machine?
==================================
Supporters or investors?
Supporters will do all they can due to the emotional attachment to the “club”.
Investors will do walking away, as they can see a dead pup when it’s sat in front of them.
The word investor is yet another part of the English language that the G&S One has used in a context with which most of us are unfamiliar. Changing the culture of reliance on OPM is going to have to happen now, and being honest (I know) with the language used would be a good place to start.
theredpill 30th October 2015 at 6:56 pm #Don’t post much but i wonder where Phil gets so much detail regards meeting and he says she says . Could be totally wrong here but i cant help thinking its from the ashley camp.
=================
Phil’s been on the Ibrox case since way before MA appeared on the scene.
Think back to Downfall.
He’ll have eyes and ears everywhere, not just one individual Deep Throat.
I think it’s worth going back to basics here.
A share or rights issue should be something used to develop or grow a business. For example if a haulier tenders for a large contract and gets it he may need to buy some new trucks to handle the contract, so a few hundred thousand pounds needs to be raised to buy them. He doesn’t want more debt so new money coming into the business may be a way to go.
What share or rights issues shouldn’t be needed for is just to pay the day to day running costs. All that indicates is that the business is running at a loss.
Whilst I can accept that this may be considered a short term solution to a problem, from what I can see this business has been running at a loss since it’s creation. The first set of audited accounts showed a substantial loss. The second set of accounts showed a substantial loss. It is generally felt that the third set of accounts, which must be imminent if they want to have an AGM and pass special resolutions, will show a substantial loss. There is nothing at all to indicate that they are about to start breaking even.
In addition, the only “plan” the people operating this business seem to have is based on winning the championship, getting promoted, winning the premiership and getting into the Champions League. Realistically even that only makes sound financial sense if they actually qualify for the group stages.
They really, really need to start over and do it properly this time. The problem is that if they try that then they won’t be able to afford to play at Ibrox Stadium, the costs would simply be too high for a sustainable business.
The only alternative realistic is someone with a whole lot of money which they are actually willing to spend on an expensive hobby.
The club is as good as dead, they just won’t accept it.
tykebhoy 30th October 2015 at 11:53 am #Stevo does that mean the team taking to Easter Road on Sunday may have to play in a badgeless shirt and be known as Sevco or alternatively taking a leaf out of the Purple Pain’s book TFKAR (Team formerly known as Rangers)
=============================================
I’ve just heard from a source that a compromise has been reached on the TFRC badge issue.
Following a conference call last night, DK (himself, not the company or board or club) and SD have agreed the following.
TRFC will be allowed to use the name Rangers and the interwoven lettered crest for Sunday’s game, but DK will have to jet in and walk up and down Princes Street and Leith Walk with an a-board advertising Sports Direct’s latest cut price Rangers merchandise from 0930 to 1700.
I’m off oot for the game now in anticipation of the TDs and rotten fruit heading my way.
The Cat NR1 31st October 2015 at 11:16 am #Phil’s been on the Ibrox case since way before MA appeared on the scene.Think back to Downfall.
____________________________________________________________
As with everything in this saga, do we actually know exactly when MA became one of the cast?
Slightly OT, but would that be Mr DCK (with ticket and phone in hand) behind Frank Lampard at today’s Chelsea v Liverpool game? Ironically, the headline reads ‘Look who’s back at the Bridge…’
Found it on the BBC Live Text Commentary
The Cat NR1 31st October 2015 at 10:39 am #
‘….taking a Bryson approach to things,..’
___________
(As a wee aside, on a busy football day, I think we should get dictionary recognition of that phrase, to perpetuate the infamy of that man by making his name synonymous with ridiculous waffle.
The phrase has undoubtedly passed into everyday understanding and use by the thousands of readers of this blog.
I am minded to suggest to the up-daters of the Chambers English Dictionary that it should be included in the next updated revision.
Any non-defamatory pithy definitions spring to mind? )
Englandshire 31st October 2015 at 12:54 pm
‘…would that be Mr DCK ..)
_______
It would certainly appear so.But I only saw it when I clicked on the image!
Sure is bears will love this explanation!
Headlines tomorrow : Abramovich seeks out the ” King ” to beat the Blue’s……….