0
    0

    Comment on Bad Money? by easyJambo.

    Further to the RIFC debt for equity swaps, a total of £24.25m in loans has been converted to shares in the last 11 months (£11.13m in Sep 18, £5.5m in Jun 19 and £14.12m in Aug 19).

    I believe that the haste is which the conversions were carried out makes it likely that UEFA had insisted on the debt reduction as conditional to the granting of UEFA licences over the last two seasons.  UEFA does not allow for excessive losses to be covered by loans under FFP rules, although equity investments are acceptable.

    According to their last accounts, the total of "investor" loans at 30 June 2018 was £23.425m. We also know from official documents that Barry Scott did not convert £45k of his loan (for reasons unknown).

    Those figures suggest that RIFC borrowed an additional £870k against a forecast £4m last season. The reduced borrowing may be the result of better than expected revenue from the EL run last season.  A further borrowing requirement of £3.6m was forecast for this season.

    My figures don't take account of any short term borrowing from Close or elsewhere.  However I will be interested to see how my calculations stack up against the accounts when they are published (probably in October).

    easyJambo Also Commented

    Bad Money?
    Cluster One 7th August 2019 at 07:06

    easyJambo 7th August 2019 at 00:06
    so more than enough to vote through anything they want.
    ……………….
    Could that include a nice pay rise, a renaming of ibrox, selling off some assets?
    ….

    Enough to vote through anything they want.And would i be correct in saying (and happy to be corrected)that club 72 shareholding is now so low that they now can’t call an EGM if king and co start to vote through anything they want and the fans start to not like what they (king and co) are voting through.

    ======================================

    With a controlling shareholding they are free to do what they want.

    Club 1872 now holds approx 6.4% of RIFC shares. You only need 5% to raise a motion at a GM or AGM.  It is the same threshold that the Res12 guys had to meet to get their motion on the agenda at Celtic's AGM. 


    Bad Money?
    John Clark 7th August 2019 at 09:17

    easyJambo 7th August 2019 at 00:06

    '..then they collectively control 81%, so more than enough to vote through anything they want.#

    ++++++++++++++

    I thought I had seen a reference in something from the TOP to the effect that the concert party could not use the additional shares they were allowed to obtain to increase their voting power or some such. I didn't understand it then ( couldn't really see how they could be denied the voting rights attached to the extra shares) and am probably mistaken. . Any recollection?

    ================================

    That restriction applied to the share issue in September 2018 where the Concert Party were unable to increase their overall share of the company (34.05%) until King made his offer in January. So while new shares were issued to Club 1872 and others, King Park, Letham and Taylor were restricted on how much of their loans could be converted to shares.

    That restriction was lifted following King's formal offer in January, but when the second share issue (DFE swap) was proposed, TOP agreed that it could proceed unrestricted if the shareholders other than the CP and Barry Scott, voted through a "whitewash" motion at a general meeting to waive the need for another Rule 9 offer. That motion was passed a a general meeting on 19 June. The CP was then free to convert their remaining loans and by doing so increase their percentage holdings in the company.


    Bad Money?
    StevieBC 7th August 2019 at 10:49

    eJ, just for absolute clarity…

    With this latest confirmation of share ownership, the only external debts for RIFC/TRFC would now be ;

    • Close Asset Mgmt. [£7M ?]
    • Trade creditors [suppliers waiting longer to get paid]
    • Big Mike [final bill tbc]

    With potentially other creditors to be crystallized indecision in the name of Hummel, Elite? 

    ======================================

    I have no idea where the £7m liabilty to Close has come from. Some Trade Creditors and Social Taxes are always due, but you should look to see if they are in step with previous years to see if there is a significant change in the balances.

    It will be instructive to see how the next set of accounts are presented re the DFE swap.  Approx £5.5m of loans were converted to Loan Notes, then shares, prior to the year end (30 June). The remaining £8.5m of "investor" loans were also converted to Loan Notes (possibly before year end), but were only converted to shares after the year end.

    The debt position may therefore look somewhat confused in the accounts.

    I would expect that there would at least be some mention of the SDI settlement as a post Balance Sheet event (assuming there is a ruling on damages following the 23 September hearing). If not there might be some mention of a contingent liability.  Those contingent liabilities may extend to Elite and Hummel if they also decide to to seek redress through the courts. 


    Recent Comments by easyJambo

    In Whose Interests
    Auldheid 7th November 2019 at 15:33

    It's all so obvious now looking back  so why is a sham being allowed to continue to stigmatise Scottish football?

    Whose interests is it really in to sustain  a myth at the expense of whatever future Scottish has?

    https://fanswithoutscarves.org/2019/11/07/stigma-in-scottish-football-part-2-a-lesson-from-history/amp/?__twitter_impression=true

    ===============================

    That's a well written and argued piece.


    In Whose Interests
    TRFC back in court in front of Lady Wolffe next Thursday for the Memorial Walls case

    Thursday 14th November

    Procedural Hearing

    Between 9.30am and 10.00am

    CA132/18 Memorial Walls Ltd v The Rangers Football Club Ltd – MBM Commercial LLP – Anderson Strathern LLP

     


    In Whose Interests
    John Clark 7th November 2019 at 13:46

    From your posting of the 'Sun's stuff, it looks as though there was some substantial business relating to the 'facts ' allegedly backing up Whitehouse's claim, and that it was not a mere case-management affair.

    I'm annoyed that I missed it, whatever it was!

    =================================

    You won't have missed it being discussed in court. The Sun article is timestamped at 08:42 this morning, so was written before the hearing.

    I'm sure the legal teams for each of the claimants will either be already aware of the existence of the emails or will seek to have them disclosed as exculpatory evidence.


    In Whose Interests
    Club 1872's membership agree to their proposed share purchase

    https://club1872.co.uk/news/poll-result-major-share-purchase/


    In Whose Interests
    I didn't make it to the Court of Session this morning as I'm choked with the cold, but a Sun article this morning suggests that there are some potentially explosive emails related to the case.

    https://www.thescottishsun.co.uk/news/4924777/rangers-fraud-suspects/

    BOSS BLAST 

    Rangers fraud case: Ex-Lord Advocate slammed by procurator fiscal for indicting seven suspects

    SCOTLAND’S former top prosecutor was slammed for indicting seven Ran­gers fraud probe suspects, emails reveal.

    Ex-Lord Advocate Frank Mulholland’s decision was blasted as “unimaginable” by procurator fiscal Helen Nisbet.

    Secret files show Ms Nisbet wanted more time to charge five suspects following the £5.5million Ibrox power grab.

    But she claimed Lord Mulholland dismissed the move after “half a second” and “abandoned” another call to bring them to the dock.

    She added: “To be replaced by completely unimagined and unimaginable Plan C to indict all seven.

    "We’re to libel as many charges as we can.”

    Six people were eventually charged but later cleared over Charles Green’s 2012 buyout.

    Four are now suing Police Scotland and prosecutors.
    David Whitehouse and Paul Clark are chasing £9million and £5million respectively.

    Fellow Duff & Phelps administrator David Grier wants £2million, while Mr Green is seeking £20million.

    The Crown said: “It wouldn’t be appropriate to comment.”

    douglas.walker@the-sun.co.uk