bennett Posted December 22, 2017 Share Posted December 22, 2017 (edited) 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 -2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Florentine_Pogen Posted December 22, 2017 Share Posted December 22, 2017 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 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bennett Posted December 22, 2017 Share Posted December 22, 2017 Sorry Flory but supporting Celtic does not make one a financial expert, even I spot basic errors in that. -3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
marty_j Posted December 22, 2017 Share Posted December 22, 2017 Statement o'clock soon? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Florentine_Pogen Posted December 22, 2017 Share Posted December 22, 2017 Sorry Flory but supporting Celtic does not make one a financial expert, even I spot basic errors in that. Benny, I profess no financial / commercial /business expertise. Happy to be shot down in flames if I’ve posted a load of mince.As you obviously have knowledge on these matters, please share your wisdom with the great unwashed.Cheers. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bennett Posted December 22, 2017 Share Posted December 22, 2017 1 minute ago, Florentine_Pogen said: Benny, I profess no financial / commercial /business expertise. Happy to be shot down in flames if I’ve posted a load of mince. As you obviously have knowledge on these matters, please share your wisdom with the great unwashed. Cheers. "evco is structurally loss making. It is doubtful whether it can be made profitable" My knowledge is fairly limited but ... Future accounts will have retail profits, historically around £4-5m. The recent accounts showed a one off payment to general Mike, very little if anything on the retail front... Last year of the sports direct deal, at far better terms with a new deal.... suggests the prospect of breaking even or even a small profit... -2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Florentine_Pogen Posted December 22, 2017 Share Posted December 22, 2017 I think the operative word here might be “structurally”. [emoji1335] 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bennett Posted December 22, 2017 Share Posted December 22, 2017 9 minutes ago, Florentine_Pogen said: I think the operative word here might be “structurally”. "t is doubtful whether it can be made profitable" -2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cyderspaceman Posted December 22, 2017 Share Posted December 22, 2017 (edited) 1 hour ago, Florentine_Pogen said: Benny, I profess no financial / commercial /business expertise. Happy to be shot down in flames if I’ve posted a load of mince. As you obviously have knowledge on these matters, please share your wisdom with the great unwashed. Cheers. And I thought you seemed to be making sense! eta had a look on BBC site where it says shareholders do not have to accept the offer. Surely the masses will hold onto their shares for the good of the clumpany? Or am I misunderstanding this? Edited December 22, 2017 by cyderspaceman 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buddist Monk Posted December 22, 2017 Share Posted December 22, 2017 Forgive me if I have gotten confused by the tedium that is OF affairs, but doesn't today's ruling simply state that King has to make an offer - not that the offer has to be taken up? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steelmen Posted December 22, 2017 Share Posted December 22, 2017 Very true but I am sure I read somewhere that the money has to be deposited with (insert regulator here) in case everyone takes the offer up. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thistle_do_nicely Posted December 22, 2017 Share Posted December 22, 2017 (edited) On 20/05/2015 at 13:15, No8. said: I have said since more or less Day one I wanted Dave King in to take the club forward. Along the way I obviously was left a tad disappointed that he was willing to wait so long to make his move. That said I was surprised with that part of his interview...I am assuming it has something to do with his promise to the SFA that he wouldn't operate as a 'shadow director'. If he says he is going to invest regardless the SFA could see that as he was going to take control regardless. Dave King claims to be the most scrutinised person in Scottish football. It would be remiss of us not to continue that scrutiny throughout his time at the club. Rangers have lost around 10,000 regular supporters and I honestly believe if things don't work out for this board then we may never return ( yeh I know) to the top of Scottish football. Don't f**k it up Mr King!!!!!!!! On 20/05/2015 at 14:34, No8. said: We know he has the best interests of the club at heart. He has the backing of Rangers men with the wealth to take us back to the top. He has shown in the past he is willing to invest his own money into the club. They have the backing of the vast majority of the fans who now have what they wanted and will. need to invest in our club through season tickets. Nobody else, well very few, could bring the support together the way he has. I understand why others are hurting. They wanted us dead and buried. Those that didnt want us dead were happy to see our club raped by corrupt businessmen and out and out criminals. They were happy as long as we were no threat to their clubs on the pitch. It is understandable that they are hurting. It is not even a case of GIRUY now. I just dont care about the other clubs. My only interest is what is best for Rangers and the Rangers supporters. @BobWilliamson WHY DID NO-ONE WARN YOU Edited December 22, 2017 by Thistle_do_nicely 5 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Florentine_Pogen Posted December 22, 2017 Share Posted December 22, 2017 No sweat to a billionaire rangers man. He has 30 days in which to comply with the CoS decision,I believe. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joey Jo Jo Junior Shabadoo Posted December 22, 2017 Share Posted December 22, 2017 1 hour ago, bennett said: "evco is structurally loss making. It is doubtful whether it can be made profitable" My knowledge is fairly limited but ... Future accounts will have retail profits, historically around £4-5m. The recent accounts showed a one off payment to general Mike, very little if anything on the retail front... Last year of the sports direct deal, at far better terms with a new deal.... suggests the prospect of breaking even or even a small profit... Oldco to 2010 had accumulated losses of £136million. http://library.isdx.com/infostore//Company-Accounts/RangersFootball/rangers2010.pdf (p17). Newco's accumulated losses are £25million .https://media.rangers.co.uk/uploads/2017/11/Rangers-Reports-and-Accounts-2017.pdf (p24). That's the definition of 'structurally loss making'. And a couple of million pounds here or there won't make the slightest bit of difference. You are right about one thing, though. Your knowledge is fairly limited. 9 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The DA Posted December 22, 2017 Share Posted December 22, 2017 1 hour ago, cyderspaceman said: And I thought you seemed to be making sense! eta had a look on BBC site where it says shareholders do not have to accept the offer. Surely the masses will hold onto their shares for the good of the clumpany? Or am I misunderstanding this? You're forgetting Super Ally. He got his shares at a penny a go but couldn't find anyone to buy them from him. Even his penny was wasted. And now Dave comes along... 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SilverWolfe Posted December 22, 2017 Share Posted December 22, 2017 "evco is structurally loss making. It is doubtful whether it can be made profitable" My knowledge is fairly limited but ... Future accounts will have retail profits, historically around £4-5m. The recent accounts showed a one off payment to general Mike, very little if anything on the retail front... Last year of the sports direct deal, at far better terms with a new deal.... suggests the prospect of breaking even or even a small profit... Bennett, you shouldn't post about stuff like this. You are seriously deluded if you believe this 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cerberus Posted December 22, 2017 Share Posted December 22, 2017 They deid yet? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Christophe Posted December 22, 2017 Share Posted December 22, 2017 STV newsreader cuts from the King top story to some Xmas shopping bumph filler with the line “Now a warning that spending more than you can afford can cause serious and lasting damage” without sniggering! Kudos love! 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
weirdcal Posted December 22, 2017 Share Posted December 22, 2017 Isn't there shareholders disco dave removed voting rights from? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Granny Danger Posted December 22, 2017 Share Posted December 22, 2017 You've got to feel sorry for Sevco fans, they've been through so much already. Just kidding. GIRFUY. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.