Big Rangers Administration/Liquidation Thread - All chat here!

[Insaintee]

On 13/12/2017 at 08:52, nsr said:

If Big Hoose Guy has passed on, how is the "bennett" account still posting?

Bennett is an AI

[Boghead ranter]

10 hours ago, Insaintee said:

Bennett is an AI

Without the I.

[Doink]

My paper of choice The Daily Mail

[kiddy]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-5192509/Steven-Naismith-willing-make-Rangers-return.html
Forget using the old club dying to walk away as a free agent. You get your snout right back into that trough, before it all goes tits up again, Wee Naisy!
[emoji23][emoji23][emoji23]

[Florentine_Pogen]

My paper of choice The Daily Heil

FTFY

[Florentine_Pogen]

Rangers owner Dave King loses £11m court case as judge rules in favour of Takeover Panel

Today's decision at the Court of Session potentially plunges the Rangers owner into a major cash crisis as King’s lawyer previously told Lord Bannatyne the entrepreneur was “penniless”.

 

10:43, 22 DEC 2017Updated10:54, 22 DEC 2017Sport

From today’s Daily Rectum

 

[Johnstoun]

3 minutes ago, Florentine_Pogen said:

Rangers owner Dave King loses £11m court case as judge rules in favour of Takeover Panel

Today's decision at the Court of Session potentially plunges the Rangers owner into a major cash crisis as King’s lawyer previously told Lord Bannatyne the entrepreneur was “penniless”.

 

10:43, 22 DEC 2017Updated10:54, 22 DEC 2017Sport

From today’s Daily Rectum

 

Maybe he could work some sort of deal where someone fronts him some cash using future season ticket sales as security?

[Granny Danger]

1 hour ago, Florentine_Pogen said:

Rangers owner Dave King loses £11m court case as judge rules in favour of Takeover Panel

Today's decision at the Court of Session potentially plunges the Rangers owner into a major cash crisis as King’s lawyer previously told Lord Bannatyne the entrepreneur was “penniless”.

 

10:43, 22 DEC 2017Updated10:54, 22 DEC 2017Sport

From today’s Daily Rectum

 

BBC weighing in to...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/42454416

This is a great opportunity for Sevco.  King buys out existing shareholders for £11 million.  These good loyal men and women demand a new shares issue and feed the £11 million right back into the club!

All that is required to make it work is honesty and goodwill on all sides.  Sorted!  

[sjc]

^^^Richard Wilson at the BBC right now.

[milton75]

Can't be true. SFA said he was Fit and Proper.

[Florentine_Pogen]

TAB made the following finding at paragraph 84: “… it is clear from the evidence set out in ‘Reasons for conclusions’ below that it was Mr King who communicated with Mr Letham, Mr King who decided on the quantum of price of the share purchases, Mr King who contacted Cantor Fitzgerald to affect the purchases and Mr King who-within a day of the decision-caused his family trust to pay for the shares and put them into the name of NOAL. … in this case, over and above the presumption and the deeming, the contemporaneous evidence makes it plain that neither NOAL nor the family trust had any active role in the acquisition of the shares.” (emphasis added). [111] The above I believe sets out the effective de facto control that the respondent exercises in respect to the Trusts.

https://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/docs/default-source/cos-general-docs/pdf-docs-for-opinions/2017csoh156.pdf?sfvrsn=0

Lord Bannatyne’s decision is interesting reading, in essence calling the Glib and Shameless Liar a.......err.......liar. [emoji848]

[kiddy]

TAB made the following finding at paragraph 84: “… it is clear from the evidence set out in ‘Reasons for conclusions’ below that it was Mr King who communicated with Mr Letham, Mr King who decided on the quantum of price of the share purchases, Mr King who contacted Cantor Fitzgerald to affect the purchases and Mr King who-within a day of the decision-caused his family trust to pay for the shares and put them into the name of NOAL. … in this case, over and above the presumption and the deeming, the contemporaneous evidence makes it plain that neither NOAL nor the family trust had any active role in the acquisition of the shares.” (emphasis added). [111] The above I believe sets out the effective de facto control that the respondent exercises in respect to the Trusts.
https://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/docs/default-source/cos-general-docs/pdf-docs-for-opinions/2017csoh156.pdf?sfvrsn=0

Could someone sound the Quantum klaxon?
I fcuking love quantums.

[Florentine_Pogen]

Could someone sound the Quantum klaxon?
I fcuking love quantums.

Quanta, shoorely ?? [emoji41]

[mps02]

Oh boy, this is going to be fun.

[Lyle Lanley]

Here we go

[MEADOWXI]

30 minutes ago, Florentine_Pogen said:

TAB made the following finding at paragraph 84: “… it is clear from the evidence set out in ‘Reasons for conclusions’ below that it was Mr King who communicated with Mr Letham, Mr King who decided on the quantum of price of the share purchases, Mr King who contacted Cantor Fitzgerald to affect the purchases and Mr King who-within a day of the decision-caused his family trust to pay for the shares and put them into the name of NOAL. … in this case, over and above the presumption and the deeming, the contemporaneous evidence makes it plain that neither NOAL nor the family trust had any active role in the acquisition of the shares.” (emphasis added). [111] The above I believe sets out the effective de facto control that the respondent exercises in respect to the Trusts.

https://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/docs/default-source/cos-general-docs/pdf-docs-for-opinions/2017csoh156.pdf?sfvrsn=0

QUANTUM - One of my favourite words makes a welcome return with its concomitant hilarity.

[bennett]

49 minutes ago, Florentine_Pogen said:

TAB made the following finding at paragraph 84: “… it is clear from the evidence set out in ‘Reasons for conclusions’ below that it was Mr King who communicated with Mr Letham, Mr King who decided on the quantum of price of the share purchases, Mr King who contacted Cantor Fitzgerald to affect the purchases and Mr King who-within a day of the decision-caused his family trust to pay for the shares and put them into the name of NOAL. … in this case, over and above the presumption and the deeming, the contemporaneous evidence makes it plain that neither NOAL nor the family trust had any active role in the acquisition of the shares.” (emphasis added). [111] The above I believe sets out the effective de facto control that the respondent exercises in respect to the Trusts.

https://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/docs/default-source/cos-general-docs/pdf-docs-for-opinions/2017csoh156.pdf?sfvrsn=0

Lord Bannatyne’s decision is interesting reading, in essence calling the Glib and Shameless Liar a.......err.......liar.

Bloody hell Flory you're keen.

Anyway I reckon he'll sell his shares now (if that's permitted), really no other option now.

P.s the whole new oasis.../king thing was a nonsense, obviously the courts wouldn't buy it.

 

Edited December 22, 2017 by bennett
Predictive thingy

[Florentine_Pogen]

Stolen from elsewhere, but interesting IMHO.......

So here's the thing. Valuation of businesses is not that difficult. You're trying to find the price at which the shares should change hands between a willing buyer and a willing seller each in possession of all relevant information. If it is publicly listed you start with market cap. Total number of shares in issue x market price per share. It will go up and down with market sentiment and with the company's performance. If there is a takeover bid the price will usually go up with supply and demand. That's how you'd value Celtic.

 

Sevco isn't in that situation, because there is no proper market in the shares, so you look to private company valuation methodology. Two options. One is net asset value. Tot up what you'd get for the whole basket of assets, less costs of realisation, less all debt and that's your number. Best approach for poorly performing but asset rich businesses. The other is to calculate an enterprise value. You get an adjusted maintainable EBITDA (Earnings before interest, taxation, depreciation of amortisation), and you apply a multiple to it to get the capital value. The multiple depends on market sentiment, type of business and so on, and can be quite subjective. In very basic terms you are saying, this business makes profit of £x a year, and in order to buy that recurring revenue stream I will pay a sum equivalent to 4 or 5 or 6 years earnings. The share price on that approach is enterprise value less net debt.

 

Sevco is structurally loss making. It is doubtful whether it can be made profitable, since the sort of cost cutting needed will drive revenue right down as reality dawns on and ST sales melt away. There is no maintainable profit to apply a multiple to. On a break up it would not realise enough to cover its debt, so NAV is nil.

 

The ruling means that King has to pay 20p a share. That comes to £11m apparently. You couldn't get near to that sort of valuation by any methodology. In a real world transaction the buyer would be ponying up the £11m for the shares, £23m or whatever to repay the debt, plus transactional costs of maybe £1m. For what? The privilege of supporting a structurally loss making business with no prospect of a return on investment. Even if there was a route back to profitability you'd have to price in the financial support needed over the turnaround period.

 

The objective value of the shares is nil. if there is an insolvency event, which i see as increasingly likely, the shareholders will all be wiped out. I wouldn't be at all surprised if quite a few of them will take King's offer on the view they should get out with what they can while they still can.

 

The bigger question is whether he can make the offer and what he does if he can't. I believe there may be a requirement to have a full blown offer document and verified funds available to pay. Happy Christmas Dave.

ETA - c/r Ayrshire Bacon/KDS

[bennett]

Sorry Flory but supporting Celtic does not make one a financial expert, even I spot basic errors in that.

 

 

[marty_j]

Statement o'clock soon?