Member Info for SaltedPopcorn

In terms of security, I believe Ibrox is long gone - and probably never belonged to Sevco in the first place. If Sevco did have unencumbered ownership of Ibrox, don't people think it would have been used to secure loans before now? Having to fix last minute loans, especially ones at payday rates, are bad for the heart. The evidence: Assets from Rangers (RIP) bought at a suspiciously low price for something that supposedly included Ibrox John Brown, unprompted, flagged a problem with Ibrox ownership and said "show us the deeds" The deeds have only ever been seen by one journalsit who wouldn't know what he was looking for Ibrox was never used to secure loans, despite very unfavourable terms agreed for other loans When Ibrox was being eyed up for securing a loan, the deal fell through (apparently due to fan pressure) New Board has still not shown the deeds New Board is even willing to beg for loans from the guy they stiffed rather than use Ibrox as security As far as Ibrox goes, wake up and smell the coffee.

The story, for those who are too precious to visit PMG’s site, is that Dave King and the 3 Bears all thought that one of the others was bringing the money. Of course, they have all used up all the money they had (or wanted to lose) on buying shares – not a penny of which has been of benefit to the club. Having now looked at the books, they have concluded that they are staring at a money pit. It is not said, but I am guessing that this means the assets are all gone and the onerous contracts are iron clad. The suggestion is that voices were raised and Douglas Park feels he was led on by King’s promises of bankrolling the club himself. I am guessing that Park, as the only one of the foursome with any real money, feels that he is being emotionally blackmailed into sacrificing his money because he is the only one who has got any. Anyway, back to today. An RNS from way back when indicated that there were bills falling due in the 3rd week of March that could only be met with new finance. Today is the last day of the 3rd week. Does that mean we should expect an announcement today? In the past, Fridays were always the preferred day for bad news. Speaking of Fridays, I think 3 April, being a public holiday, would be the day beyond the point of no return for appointing a Nomad. If that heralds the end of Sevco it would be a Good Friday indeed.

Rule 1 of the AIM just says a month - it doesn't define it.

I will miss this forum, of course. But most of all, I will miss the soap opera of a company being run so badly you think it couldn't get any worse - yet it constantly does. You think a crisis must be terminal, only to get another brief lease of life. As far as I can tell, this club has been effectively insolvent for a year - saved initially by the Letham and Easdale loans and further loans and equity quick fixes ever since. But right from the very beginning, the business model was not sustainable and even when money was still in the bank (and I remember Sevconians bragging about being debt free) the writing was on the wall. There was never a point at which the business derived income would have covered the expenditure. RIP Sevco.

No, not again. This is a new club founded in 2012. It has never yet gone bankrupt. You may be thinking of another club with a similar name etc. that went bankrupt in 2012.

The AIM rules are kinda contradictory anyway. On the one hand they say that failure to appoint a Nomad within a month of the last one leaving will result in delisting. But on the other hand, they say that a company can only be delisted if 75% of shareholders vote for it and the company gives 20 days notice. or where shares have been suspended for 6 months (Rule 41). I know that in theory Rule 1 would apply before Rule 41 could take effect but it could be argued that the two rules have mutually exclusive intent.

Shares suspended because the Nomad walked - feeling is that company may be trading whilst insolvent.

Hi Cambridge - with insight like yours you would be an asset to the Board - and it just so happens there's currently a vacancy for a non-exec director... Maybe you could tweet them to offer your services.

Stu - and that is different to what you have just posted how?

Q: how is it not the worst thing? A: liquidation is even worse. Lulz

again?

As Footyfam points out, two bloggers from diametrically opposite viewpoints are saying the same thing. Sevco is teetering on the brink of oblivion. Rather than blaming the messenger, is it not time to wake up and smell the coffee?

I'd say in fairness, Stu, that bloggers have a better track record of being right than yourself.

I am sorry to say that season ticket holders are being taken for mugs. This season's money was half spent on clearing last season's debt. Next season's money won't even cover this season's debt. You would be shelling out money to pay for football you have already watched.

The only time PMG's sources dried up was during the Leach/Llambias time. I guess that's because they ran the club pretty much on a closed loop involving only themselves and Mike Ashley. If PMG is correct, the terms of the drawdown of the additional 5m would be that he would get almost 100% of Rangers Retail, would own all the images, logos, etc. for years to come and that the advertising rights would be given to him for even longer. In other words, the only income for the club would be gate money, pies, bovril and the occasional player sale. From this, the club would have to pay salaries, security, stadium upkeep, transfer fees, travel, payments on onerous contracts, etc. Just to put this into perspective, the club currently seems to lose about 8m a year, give or take. Gate money would probably bring in around 8m on a good year. Salaries are somewhere between 6m and 7m. So even if all the salaries were cut completely and the club operated on an amateur basis with volunteer support staff, the income would still not cover the outgoings. Or put another way, the current rate of loss (8m) divided by the number of punters who paid to watch the last home game (28,000) is 285 pounds. That means that to break even, every man woman and child in the stadium on St Patrick's Day would have to pay an additional 285 pounds a year for no extra benefit. This looks like a scale of loss that cannot be surmounted without multi-million pound subsidies from a benefactor, year on year in perpetuity.

It looked like a genuine offer to me - and quite generous given the rumours that they are currently trading at 2p.

The club and the company are the same. the distinction is purely a legal and marketing fiction that grown-ups don't believe in.

Players contracts ending before the playoffs is no biggie. You'd not get promoted with them anyway if they can't beat Livingston, Alloa and the Blue Brazil.

Whilst I would have been unhappy investing in the club with the old Board in place, it beggars belief that shareholders would have voted for this instead.

My understanding of the business model was that it required promotion to the Premiership this season; top two finish next season; and Champions League football and Scottish Premiership title the season after next. This would give access to greater pools of prize money and sustain the club once the war chest had gone. Now... The war chest has long gone. Shares are suspended so no chance of raising equity that way. Banks won't touch the club. The past five league results have been draws - all against lower positioned clubs and three against the bottom three teams. Four of these five games were at home. Attendance following the installation of the new Board was initially about 3,000 above the season average but last night's gate was actually lower than before the new Board came into being. It is difficult to see promotion happening this season - indeed, even getting a play off place could be touch and go at the present rate. If administration happens, the 15 points penalty would make sure of no playoff place. Most of the players are out of contract this summer and I can't see any ready mechanism to replace them. There are onerous contracts in place that will bleed the club for many years to come - assuming the club is even able to survive that long. So, with the original business plan demonstrably in tatters, is there a new plan in place?