0
    0

    Comment on Accountability via Transparency. by tykebhoy.

    Wouldn't club 1872's constitution require them to vote against the Debt for Equity swap.   I know, I know.

    Isn't club 1872's only aim supposed to be to increase the fan shareholding in the club (Sic).  From memory the dilution at the last swap wasn't too great because they had also loaned but this time the dilution is around a third.

     

    Of course club 1872 would be able to increase their holding again and more cheaply if people are prepared to sell and they have the cash.  The market cap cold not possibly continue to stand up a share price of 20p if the proposed swap goes through, indeed the share price in the last trade in the public domain (through JPJenkins) was at 18p.

    tykebhoy Also Commented

    Accountability via Transparency.
    I can never work out wether the JPJenkins site has an echo because sometimes it shows 2 identical transactions and sometimes only 1.  Anyway since I last looked two lines of 300,000 shares at 18p have been added.  If the seller voted to sell on the court ordered offer, he/she/they have taken a £6000+ hit because honest Dave bought enough time to gerrymander the vote


    Accountability via Transparency.
    easyJambo
    15th April 2019 at 11:31


    every fan should know that the season-ticket revenue will solely go towards the first-team squad.


    When did Close Brothers become part of the first team squad and aren't there registration issues 😉


    Recent Comments by tykebhoy

    In Whose Interests
    Tim Tim @ 22.17

     

    Laird's promise 

    ‐——————

    That is a good one.  I'm taking it you realise who is making the promise for Laird?


    Bad Money?
    Thanks Auldheid


    Bad Money?
    scotc @ 9.11

    Auldheid would have a better understanding then me but my understanding is that UEFA accept the concept of a holding company operating the club and would not be concerned if the holding company meet FFP even if the club wouldn't.  What I am unsure out is the level of debt the holding company is permitted before it doesn't meet the FFP criteria.  I would assume it has to be a percentage of group turover given that RIFC has no revenue stream other than dilution of its own shares


    Bad Money?
    Not withstanding the fact that Hebei Fortune already having a full quota of foreign players, amongst a host of other things, made the story ridiculous, but has anybody considered that whoever released the squirrel was implying that they made an illegal approach to the player or his representatives.

    No official bid – no acceptance of a bid – no permission to talk to player or his representatives.

    Morelos rejected terms – how could he know what terms offered with Hebei not having permission to talk to him or his agents


    Bad Money?
    Am I not correct in thinking that SDi's claim is against TRFC.  The debt for equity was RIFC.  There is an inter-company loan from parent to wholly owned subsidiary of the amount of all the directors loans.  TRFC's biggest creditor is still RIFC?

    I think the holding company scenario is enough to circumvent UEFA FFP rules.  The holding companies entire assets are locked in to a loss making company that has a basket of assets that could, say, be used to create a football club.