Reading between the lines of some of the statement:   “The financial – The Scottish Football Monitor

Reading between the lines of some of the statement:   “The financial …

Comment on Time for Scots Government to Take Bull by the Horns by easyJambo.

Reading between the lines of some of the statement:
“The financial arrangements between the parties are transformed.  TRFC will now receive by far the majority of net profits from the retail operations at the Megastore and Webstore together with an equal share of all net profits from sales through SD”.
Rangers get increased profits from sales at the Megastore and their Webstore – (up from 51%), but that the profit from SD store sales is shared as before.  SD also continue to make profits from the sourcing, manufacture and supply of goods.
“TRFC will also obtain a priority dividend on the winding up of RRL”.
I assume that means that they will receive an advance (not enhanced) payment of their share of the dividend due on winding up RRL which might help their short term cash flow
“TRFC and SD hope that the new arrangements will be long standing but there is no longer a fixed commitment on that front. We will rely on our combined commercial performance and drive to cement the relationship going forward”.
I don’t read that as being a one year deal as is being reported on some platforms, e.g it could easily be a one year rolling contract or termination at a year’s notice.
It all seems a huge waste of revenue potential over the last three years, with boycotts, legal action etc., only to find that the club can do business with their bogey man after all.

easyJambo Also Commented

Time for Scots Government to Take Bull by the Horns
It looks as if Henderson & Jones still see some mileage in their claim against the Oldco.

There has been a document lodged at Companies House seeking to resurrect TRFCG (Wavetower) from its recent dissolution.

20 Jul 2017 RT01 Administrative restoration application

Time for Scots Government to Take Bull by the Horns
JJ’s latest blog and email chain from the days following the LNS decision are illuminating. Well done to him for sourcing and publishing the information.
The Anatomy of a Cover Up

We have the following board members commenting as follows:

Michael Johnston (Kilmarnock) – In my view, we should NOT appeal. 

Stephen Thomson (Dundee United) – I personally wish to ‘draw a line under this’ and move on.

Ralph Topping (Independent chairman) – The outcome in my view is still not proportionate.

Duncan Fraser (Aberdeen) – I am at pains to point out that I, like Ralph, find the size of the fine and therefore the punishment to be disproportionate to the scale of the actions undertaken. 

….. and in conclusion:

Ralph Topping – The consensus is clear on an appeal. There is a majority against.

Time for Scots Government to Take Bull by the Horns
Den July 16, 2017 at 23:08 
It would be good to have the details of the Ticketus arrangements.
Most of the details have been disclosed in various statutory documents, e.g. Companies House, court documents or creditors reports.  The figures vary somewhat from one to another, but the essence of the arrangements can be established.

Rangers use of Ticketus prior to Whyte was normally done on a fee only basis, e.g Ticketus will advance you £3M for three months against ST sales for a fee of £160k. Those figures came from Rangers Financial Director, Donald McIntyre, in court.

Figures from the Whyte period rely on official documents. The MG05S security document lodged at Companies House in May 2011, specified the no. of STs involved as:
2011/12 – 23,154
2012/13 – 27,017
2013/14 – 27,014
2014/15 – 23,154

Payments from Ticketus to RFC were recorded as follows:
The original criminal indictment.
£24,337,094 into Collyer Bristow client account on 07/04/11  (probably included VAT which Ticketus would reclaim)

Lord Hodge’s ruling on 23/04/12
£20,300,912 on 9 May 2011 (first tranche) – for first three seasons (seems like the above figure net of VAT)
£5, 075,213 on 21 Sep 2011 (second tranche) – for more STs from 2012/13 plus 2014/15

D&P Creditors Report 05/04/12
£20,300,000 Advanced May 11 – STs from 2011/12, 2012/13, 2013/14 (first tranche net of VAT?)
£25,400,000 Revenue expected in return
£3,000,000 Repaid June 2011
£5,000,000 Advanced September 2011 – STs from 2012/13, 2014/15 (second tranche)
£9,300,000 Revenue expected in return
£5,000,000 Repaid September 2011
£26,700,000 Creditors Claim April 2012 – (equates to total revenue expected less amount repaid)

Recent Comments by easyJambo

To Comply or not to Comply ?
One thing that was missing from King’s statement was the share issue.

Have I missed it, or is it a non starter?

To Comply or not to Comply ?
dom16 July 18, 2018 at 16:04
It seems that everybody is a enemy of “the people”, or is it just an enemy of Dave?

To Comply or not to Comply ?
Corrupt official July 17, 2018 at 20:06
I think it was Auldheid who intimated that contact was made, and I assume from the Res-12 Bhoys,
BRTH mentioned the delivery of documents for attention of the CO in a comment on CQN on the day of the hearing.

He wasn’t in his office yesterday evening when I was over at Hampden but he has been appraised of the documents which were delivered yesterday and which have been the subject of correspondence and telephone conversations with a leading form of International Lawyers this morning.

Part of the conversation revolved whether or not these documents were pertinent to this evening’s hearing.

There is no doubt that they are of significant import, should be before the tribunal and may well give the current or future SFA officials some pause for thought and possibly a little work to do.

To Comply or not to Comply ?
According to the DR this morning, King will appear in court on Friday.

To Comply or not to Comply ?
Barcabhoy July 16, 2018 at 20:15
A new contract in perpetuity that allows SDI to match any offer is arguably as bad. The immediate effect if SDI win in court will be that nobody else will bid moving forward
It’s not clear if the perpetuity argument in the recent court judgement relates to all elements, matched or otherwise, or only those for which there is no offer from a third party.

I think SD’s reference to “infinite number of renewals” was specific to elements for which there was no offer, in which case the existing arrangements with SD would roll over at two yearly intervals.

If SD was to decline to match the offer for any element, then I think that would be the end of their matching arrangement for that element, for all future deals.

If SD matched an offer for any/all elements, I’m not clear if they would retain the rights to match third party offers for those elements in the future, once SD’s initial term had expired.


SSL Certificates