0
    0

    Comment on Bad Money? by tykebhoy.

    Thanks Auldheid

    tykebhoy Also Commented

    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.


    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?


    Accountability via Transparency.
    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.


    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 😉


    We’re Gonny Need Another Baw.
    Beaton awarded a free-kick for the Morelos push on Brown which immediately preceded the kick.  Taking a kick at a player off the ball is violent conduct, a mandatory red card.  Beaton  may have said he dealt with the incident by awarding the freekick and been vague about the kick.

     

    Steve MacLean accepted a two match ban when the referee panel agreed with the compliance officer that grabbing a player by the genitals is violent conduct.  If Beaton saw the Morelos assault on Christie he needs to explain why he disagrees with 3 former referrees that what he witnessed wasn't violent conduct and therefore a mandatory dismissal.  I don't recall him dealing in anyway with the incident.

     

    Only Morelos will know if he intended to rake Ralston's back.  But his body position was totally wrong for a natural occurrence.  In this instance I think Beaton  only required to believe there was intent to take action.  I belive the actipn he took was to award a throw in.  The absolute minimum that should have happened is a warning for Morelos to be careful when jumping at/over an opponent.