As much as I welcomed Mr Winnifrith’s podcast, I must take issue with any suggestion that Dave King has received any approval or endorsement from The Financial Conduct Authority (FCA). The facts of the matter are that a series of complaints on King’s manipulation of the share price of RIFC, that were submitted in October 2014, were not upheld for further review. However there are other complaints made in January to the FCA. These complaints were made when the share price was at an all time low of 18p on 31/12/14 which led to their acquisition by King’s concert party soon after.
There are therefore two complaints that have yet to be determined by the FCA:
1.Did King and his concert party breach the 30% ownership threshold?
2. Did King manipulate the share price prior to their acquisition?
King has ‘previous’ in share manipulation and in surreptitiously breaching the 30% threshold so as to renege on his obligations to make an offer for all remaining shares, as per the regulations of The Johannesburg Stock Exchange (and The London Stock Exchange Alternative Investment Market). Shares held in his daughter’s name suddenly breached the 30% threshold and proceeded to a 76% holding as a consequence of an acquisition by an ‘anonymous’ third party. Everyone knew that this was the handiwork of Dave King. Ian Gregory Morris, in his capacity as MMI chairman, failed to answer questions on this obvious breach of the JSE rules and regulations. Morris bluffed and blustered on King’s artifice, then quickly reverted to type with a slew of fanciful bullet points about growth and profits, accompanied by a one line statement that no dividends would be paid.
Those who have paid attention to Paul Murray’s statements would have noted his intention to raise capital via ISDX. I agree with Winnifrith’s analysis that a figure north of £15m was the target. I also concur that there is no possibility of any listing when the ownership of assets is in dispute.
I disagree with Winnifrith’s assertion that ownership issues will be resolved by the end of 2016. I have no problem with his assertion that the assets could revert to BDO.
Which leads me to the obvious question. What is the Plan B of the shyster board? Winnifrith calculated that they would require at least £15m to balance the books, maintain Ibrox and provide £1m for players for next season in the Scottish Premiership. King has referred to soft loans, but no-one in his concert party has access to this kind of funding.
Mr Winnifrith reviewed austerity measures such as selling players and closing down our training facilities/academy at Auchenhowie.
The former would be a problem as 10 members in our squad can agree a pre-contract with other clubs in January, with no fee. As for the £665,000 in four acquisitions, only Tavernier and possibly Waghorn would have resale value, but not enough to make any appreciable difference. In my opinion Mr Warburton would vigorously oppose any attempt to sell either player in January or the 2016 close season.
The latter makes fiscal sense, but with this prized asset in dispute would it not be better to use it now as we may not be able to do so in the future?
In a matter of months the ramifications of King’s lies will hit home. A decision will have to be made on the £4.5m in loans that are due in December. There is no possibility of repaying them. The improved match day income, ST and ticket sales should sustain operations until January. Getting by from one match day to the next in 2016 will not be tenable.
The AGM in December should be instructive. King will fly in at great expense to candy-coat the austerity.
Meanwhile Level 5 will issue positive spin to soften the media impact.
In the final analysis, austerity measures will continue for as long as Green remains on trial. Murray had a seven year plan of organic growth and CL participation in 2022. Will he now review his plan and increase the timeline to a minimum of the next decade?