Why the Beast of Armageddon Failed to Show?

By

Agrajag says: Sunday, November 25, 2012 at 09:58 What would …

Comment on Why the Beast of Armageddon Failed to Show? by easyJambo.

Agrajag says: Sunday, November 25, 2012 at 09:58

What would remain though is the 5 players with guaranteed bonuses. If we take one of them as Mr Ferguson, on c£2m, plus another four on say c£1m each (on average) that would be £6m. So around £3m tax. However you need to add interest and penalties to that. Given the total non-compliance the penalties could be as much as 100%, with interest being the same depending on when these players were actually paid.
===================================
The five players were identified as Messrs Selby, Inverness, Doncaster, Barrow and Furness

Ferguson has previously been identified as Mr Ipswich so is not one of the five.

There are few clues to the identities of the five, other than Mr Inverness, who is more than likely to be Nacho Novo (EBT £1.2M). Other snippets include Mr Selby who received £460K per annum via the EBT. Mr Barrow is only identified as a foreign player. Mr Furness was identified as the last player to benefit from the Equity trust in March 2006. There is no information on Mr Doncaster.

easyJambo Also Commented

Why the Beast of Armageddon Failed to Show?
Addendum to my last post – Novo played 179 games for Rangers between 2004 and 2010 according to his Wiki entry.


Why the Beast of Armageddon Failed to Show?
albabhoy says: Friday, November 23, 2012 at 20:10
================================
Here’s another one from just a couple of weeks ago re Annan’s U20 side in the youth cup and a refreshingly honest admission and action from Annan’s chairman

http://www.scottishfootballleague.com/news/article/annan-hold-hands-up-in-sfa-youth-cup/

Wednesday 14th November 2012

Annan Athletic have been dismissed from the Scottish FA Youth Cup after admitting an error with the registration of three players who played in their 2-1 success over Montrose in the last Round.

The Third Division side held their hands up to the SFA upon learning that 3 youngsters from their under-16 side had not been properly registered to play in the under-20 tournament and rather than get involved in a lengthy debate they have stepped aside to allow Montrose time to prepare for their match against Dunfermline in the Round Four.

Chairman Henry McClelland said, “There has been an administrative error on our part that we have admitted to. It is a really sore blow for the boys and the club but something that we will learn from and it will not happen again.”

“We could have appealed but that would not have been the right thing to do as we had made a mistake and it would not have been fair to keep Montrose hanging around.”


Why the Beast of Armageddon Failed to Show?
Elgin v TRFC postponed by Grampian Police as Elgin was believed to have sold too many tickets.

What a nonsense, and doesn’t reflect well on the home team.

http://local.stv.tv/aberdeen/news/202362-police-force-cancellation-of-egins-sfl-match-with-rangers/


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