Generic Sevco / Rangers meltdown thread

[grunt]

Notice of Rangers AGM. According to Twitter, resolution 11 seeks to remove Ashley's voting rights.

https://t.co/hHCyQkbTNT

[CropleyWasGod]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

I can't get my head round these figures.

£ 2.5 m required to see the season out, starting in December. Say 6 monthly tranches of £ 400,000. Are the walk-ups etc. going to make up the balance of £ 1.4 million a month ( assuming an average spend of £ 1.8 million/month )

I also see in note 32 to the accounts RIFC are contesting the SPFL fine of £ 250 K plus £ 150 K costs for their use of EBTs.
Seemingly it went to an SFA tribunal set for 29/30 October.

Never heard anything about that Still it should be another £ 400,000 for the pledgers to fund.

Ozy posted a link yesterday to a bit in the Record (?) about the Tribunal. The verdict is "awaited".

As for the £2.5m, we could perm anything from that. There is no indication as to how it's made up, what it's needed for, and whether the fines, legal fees, Dave's first class travel etc etc have been allowed for.

[Spike Mandela]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

No matter what skilled "wordsmith" they come up with, I am still at a loss to understand how they can be unconnected to the shenanigans that went on but still claim all the titles etc they won whilst benefiting from said cheating.....

I suspect a lot of 'smoke and mirrors' will have went on in the notorious 5 way agreement that was struck with Charles Green's Sevco vehicle.

The authorities did a lot of fudging things for Rangers and if memory serves Our Mr Petrie was in the midst of this agreement..

[CropleyWasGod]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Notice of Rangers AGM. According to Twitter, resolution 11 seeks to remove Ashley's voting rights.

https://t.co/hHCyQkbTNT

Shirley that's badly worded:-

" if he is involved in any capacity whatsoever in the management or administration of a Club, or has any power whatsoever to
influence the management or administration of a Club"

We all know what its meant to mean, but, at face value, wouldn't that include King and the Bears?

[Platinum Scotty]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

I suspect a lot of 'smoke and mirrors' will have went on in the notorious 5 way agreement that was struck with Charles Green's Sevco vehicle.

The authorities did a lot of fudging things for Rangers and if memory serves Our Mr Petrie was in the midst of this agreement..

I remember the "behind closed doors" agreement but that surely was based on them being, innocent (hahahaha) of the said crime and that any such agreement would be void.....listen to me, as if the suits would admit they got it wrong and do the right thing - sorry

[grunt]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Shirley that's badly worded:-

" if he is involved in any capacity whatsoever in the management or administration of a Club, or has any power whatsoever to
influence the management or administration of a Club"

We all know what its meant to mean, but, at face value, wouldn't that include King and the Bears?

I think this is the all important clause

the Directors of the Company shall be entitled at their sole discretion and without issuing reasons therefor to determine whether or not a member does have such involvement in or power to influence a Club.

[CropleyWasGod]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

I think this is the all important clause

Nice one.

I'm sure Ashley's legal guys will be all over it. I smell another Court date coming up.

On that score, there are so many Court cases coming up. Can someone (looking at Ozy) keep a Hibs.net diary of what's happening when?

[Ozyhibby]

12/13th November is Charlie's days in court over payment of his legal fees. Looks a slam dunk in Charlie's favour but who knows with these things.
9th December is Ashley v King over Kings alleged contempt of court. No idea how it will go but I wouldn't bet against Ashley.
Both of these hearing will cost Sevco money to defend themselves and if the outcomes are unfavourable cost them a lot more.
All this is over and above the £2.5m they say the need till seasons end.
If they try to stop Ashley voting then that will be another trip to court.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[CropleyWasGod]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

12/13th November is Charlie's days in court over payment of his legal fees. Looks a slam dunk in Charlie's favour but who knows with these things.
9th December is Ashley v King over Kings alleged contempt of court. No idea how it will go but I wouldn't bet against Ashley.
Both of these hearing will cost Sevco money to defend themselves and if the outcomes are unfavourable cost them a lot more.
All this is over and above the £2.5m they say the need till seasons end.
If they try to stop Ashley voting then that will be another trip to court.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Do you know this, or are you just assuming? Please say the former.

[Ozyhibby]

Charlie Greens case is a buggy in that it could end up costing millions given the length of the case. If the judge rules in Greens favour then I think the judge would find it difficult to cap the costs given the seriousness of the charges Green faces. He will surely be entitled to the best defence available given that he faces 10 year in jail.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Ozyhibby]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Do you know this, or are you just assuming? Please say the former.

Which bit? The dates?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Ozyhibby]

Just read it back. I am assuming that it's over and above the £2.5m they need to finish the season but I think that's a fair assumption as they would not have known about these cases when they were compiling the accounts. Besides, they can't even put enough aside to pay their footballers never mind court judgements that go against them.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Ozyhibby]

@alextomo: SFA have passed the Big Tax Case ruling to their legal dept so I would expect to hear something after they are done with it


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[CropleyWasGod]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Just read it back. I am assuming that it's over and above the £2.5m they need to finish the season but I think that's a fair assumption as they would not have known about these cases when they were compiling the accounts. Besides, they can't even put enough aside to pay their footballers never mind court judgements that go against them.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Okay, I see.

Actually, when they were preparing the accounts (or, more importantly, when they were being audited, ie very recently) those potential costs would have been known about. They might not have been able to be quantified... they still aren't.....but their possibility would have been known. If the auditors have been doing their job properly, they would have wanted to see forecasts with an estimate of those costs in them, as well as legal advice as to the likelihood of their being payable.

So, IMO it comes back to us not actually knowing. My gut is with your assumption, but my head.... is up my arse at the moment.

[grunt]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Just read it back. I am assuming that it's over and above the £2.5m they need to finish the season but I think that's a fair assumption as they would not have known about these cases when they were compiling the accounts. Besides, they can't even put enough aside to pay their footballers never mind court judgements that go against them.

They knew about both of these claims when the accounts were finalised, and they are both mentioned. The Ashley claim is included in
contingent liabilities although no value is mentioned. The Green case is included in the post balance sheet events note.

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

These costs and expenses, whilst almost impossible to quantify at this time, could run to several hundred thousand pounds. The claim is being defended

[grunt]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

So, IMO it comes back to us not actually knowing. My gut is with your assumption, but my head.... is up my arse at the moment.

We need to base our conclusions on what has been stated. The accounts include within Note 1 a statement on going concern. The note is fairly detailed, and sets out what the Board's assumptions are. It is silent on these claims, although elsewhere in the accounts they say that both claims are being defended. They don't state whether they believe they will win. Here's the Note on Going Concern.

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

The Board of Directors (“the Board”) are required to prepare the statutory financial statements on the going concern basis unless it is inappropriate to presume that the Group and Parent Company will continue in business. In satisfaction of this responsibility the Board have considered the Group’s ability to meet its liabilities as they fall due. The Group’s business activities, together with the factors likely to affect its future development and performance are set out in the Strategic Report. The Strategic Report also describes how the Group manages its capital, its liquidity risk and its exposure to credit risk. The Group meets its day to day working capital requirements through existing cash facilities, shareholder loans and finance leases. Management information tools including budgets and cash flow forecasts are used to monitor and manage current and future liquidity. The Board acknowledges that there is a level of uncertainty in the general economic environment which may impact the trading position of its customers and suppliers.

The Board has undertaken a recent and thorough review of the Group’s forecasts and the associated risks. These forecasts extend for a period beyond one year from the date of approval of these financial statements. The extent of this review reflected the current economic environment, the Club’s current and projected trading and position in Scottish football.

The forecasts make key assumptions, based on information available to the Board, around:

• Continued progression through the Scottish league structure. The Group’s forecast assumes the Club will achieve promotion to the SPFL Premiership at the conclusion of the 2015/16 season and will consolidate its position in the SPFL Premiership in 2016/17.
• Season ticket sales, the timing and amount of which are consistent with the Club’s historic experience. The forecasts include an uplift in season ticket numbers and prices from season 2015/16 to reflect the expected return to the SPFL Premiership (while still remaining below the levels when the Club was previously in the SPL).
• Matchday income, which is projected to grow as the Club progresses through the Scottish League structure.
• Sponsorship, commercial and other non-matchday income reflecting customer confidence returning and increased hospitality demand.
• The exclusion of cash flows from dividends from Rangers Retail Limited, as the Board considers that it has limited visibility as regards the timing of anyof these cash inflows.
• Continued overhead cost reduction measures to reflect the Club’s operations returning to a more stable operating environment.
• Payroll costs reflecting the current squad size and composition in perspective to its assumptions around league progression. The forecast cash flows assume conservative amounts generated from player sales.
• The Group’s ability to secure further debt or equity finance to allow the Group to continue to meet its liabilities as they fall due.

The current and future financial position of the Group, its cash flows and liquidity position have been reviewed by the Board.

The Board recognises that achievement of the forecast is critically dependent on the football performance for the rest of the current season and next season. Consequently, sensitivities have been applied to the forecast based on a variety of football performance factors.

The forecast identifies that the group will require up to £2.5m by way of debt or equity funding by the end of season 2015/2016 in order to meet its liabilities as they fall due. Further funding will be required during the 2016/17 season, the quantum of which is dependent on future football performance and promotion to the SPFL Premiership. The forecast indicates that an initial tranche of funds will be required in December 2015.

The Board of Directors has received undertakings from certain shareholders that they will provide financial support to the Group and have satisfied themselves as to the validity of these undertakings and that the individuals have the means and authority to provide such funding as and when it is required. The Board acknowledge that had these assurances not been secured then a material uncertainty would exist which may cast doubt over the Groups ability to continue as a going concern and therefore it’s ability to realise its assets and discharge its liabilities in the normal course of business. The Board is delighted that this uncertainty has been removed and the appropriate assurances obtained.

The financial support to be made available more than covers the projected shortfall for this season and beyond.

As such, after making the enquiries referred to above, the Board of Directors believe that there is a reasonable expectation that the Group will at all times have adequate resources to continue in operational existence for the foreseeable future. Accordingly they continue to adopt the going concern basis in preparing this report and the statutory financial statements.

[grunt]

Reassuring to see a couple of typos in that little section of the accounts. Standards falling in the accounting profession perhaps CWG?

[JeMeSouviens]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

@alextomo: SFA have passed the Big Tax Case ruling to their legal dept so I would expect to hear something after they are done with it


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Presumably the sound carpet lifting and a lot of sweeping?

[Ozyhibby]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Presumably the sound carpet lifting and a lot of sweeping?

I think it the spfl that appointed Nimmo Smith but the Sfa are responsible for the Scottish cup.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Ozyhibby]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

They knew about both of these claims when the accounts were finalised, and they are both mentioned. The Ashley claim is included in
contingent liabilities although no value is mentioned. The Green case is included in the post balance sheet events note.

Would the fact that they have said that the costs related to the court cases are 'impossible to quantify' indicate that no sum has yet been allowed for this?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[grunt]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Would the fact that they have said that the costs related to the court cases are 'impossible to quantify' indicate that no sum has yet been allowed for this?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You'll need to ask CWG this one.

[Weststandwanab]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

You'll need to ask CWG this one.

My opinion for what it is worth, would be no.

If they could have quantified it, or reasonably estimated those costs those figures would have been disclosed.

[PatHead]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

My opinion for what it is worth, would be no.

If they could have quantified it, or reasonably estimated those costs those figures would have been disclosed.

I'm happy with your opinion>

[Ozyhibby]

I had a look on the Sevco sites for the opinions of those who follow follow the financial side of things and the general view is that no contingency has been allowed for the court cases.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Newry Hibs]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

12/13th November is Charlie's days in court over payment of his legal fees. Looks a slam dunk in Charlie's favour but who knows with these things.
9th December is Ashley v King over Kings alleged contempt of court. No idea how it will go but I wouldn't bet against Ashley.
Both of these hearing will cost Sevco money to defend themselves and if the outcomes are unfavourable cost them a lot more.
All this is over and above the £2.5m they say the need till seasons end.
If they try to stop Ashley voting then that will be another trip to court.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

What's this one? I've read 99.9% of posts on here, but must have glazed over here.

[ehf]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Shirley that's badly worded:-

" if he is involved in any capacity whatsoever in the management or administration of a Club, or has any power whatsoever to
influence the management or administration of a Club"

We all know what its meant to mean, but, at face value, wouldn't that include King and the Bears?

The resolution goes on to say: For the purposes of this Article “Club” shall mean any football club in membership of a national association which is in membership with FIFA other than Rangers Football Club.”

As I see it, faced with these kindergarten tactics, Asley has two options:

1. Rename Newcastle United Football Club as "Rangers Football Club".

2. Petition the Court of Session for protection against "unfair prejudice" to a member of a company under Section 994 of the Companies act 2006, and apply for interim interdict against the resolution being moved at the AGM pending the outcome of the petition.

Tempting as option 1 may be, it is a virtual certainty that Ashley will go down the Section 994 petition and interdict route. Which will result in another protracted and hugely expensive court case.

It is wonderful that the deluded Sevco fans are happily investing their hard-earned/benefits/petty crime proceeds in the Scottish legal profession as their club goes down the toilet.

[PatHead]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

I can't get my head round these figures.

£ 2.5 m required to see the season out, starting in December. Say 6 monthly tranches of £ 400,000. Are the walk-ups etc. going to make up the balance of £ 1.4 million a month ( assuming an average spend of £ 1.8 million/month )

I also see in note 32 to the accounts RIFC are contesting the SPFL fine of £ 250 K plus £ 150 K costs for their use of EBTs.
Seemingly it went to an SFA tribunal set for 29/30 October.

Never heard anything about that Still it should be another £ 400,000 for the pledgers to fund.

Take it they require money in December until half seasons go on sale which will then give them breathing space until Feb/March.

BTW Nice to see that we could kill them by denying them promotion though. Their business plan is scuppered then.

Does look a real hand to mouth existence and the accounts state a similar sized squad so don't expect lots (not even 3) signings in January unless players go out.

[jacomo]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Notice of Rangers AGM. According to Twitter, resolution 11 seeks to remove Ashley's voting rights.

https://t.co/hHCyQkbTNT

And yet some people think that Ashley might loan them more money?

With all this animosity, I can't see how Ashley and King can work together now.

[jacomo]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Take it they require money in December until half seasons go on sale which will then give them breathing space until Feb/March.

BTW Nice to see that we could kill them by denying them promotion though. Their business plan is scuppered then.

Does look a real hand to mouth existence and the accounts state a similar sized squad so don't expect lots (not even 3) signings in January unless players go out.

If we can overtake them in the League there might be reduced take up of their half season tickets too. Pleasing.

[Treadstone]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

What's this one? I've read 99.9% of posts on here, but must have glazed over here.

New this week. Fat Mike trying to bang up King for Jim White interview in South Africa. Breaks confidentiality clause/gagging order over commercial deals.
Charges against White for journalistic standards are unclear at this time.