When Charles Green engaged in an Initial Public Offering in 2012, he raised £22m. His prospectus which valued Ibrox and Auchenhowie at a combined quantum of over £100m was a leap that many were prepared to make despite the fact that he had bought them, with other people’s money, a few months earlier for £1.5m.
Charles for his next trick masked a £1.1m burn rate – due in no small part to McCoist’s £825.000 basic salary – by sweating the fixed assets further by apportioning a negative goodwill consideration of £20.45m. He turned an obvious loss into a paper profit. As this was a one trick pony the burn rate in subsequent years was stripped of its Deloitte artifice to plunge RIFC Plc into a pool of red ink. Had it not been for some deft accountancy flim flam RIFC Plc would have lost money in every year of its short existence.
My favourite detail from a 121 page Prospectus with many creative gems was The Switcheroo, viz:
“On 14 June 2012, Sevco 5088 Limited entered into agreements for no consideration to legally reassign its beneficial interest to Sevco Scotland Limited.”
There were no flies on Mr. Green. Aiden Earley and Craig Whyte were caught with their flies undone. Green exclusively owned the £2 share capital in 5088 and same in Sevco Scotland. Whyte – who tried desperately to mask his involvement – would have added value if his shares remained vital. When the CVA failed Whyte was surplus to requirements. Mr Whyte’s Reservoir Dog was inordinately parched.
The decision by Deloitte to ‘do walking away‘ from its business relationship with RIFC has ignited some feverish debate on social media. Apparently the intimidation became too much for one of their partners. They recused themselves from £594,000 of non audit work and £90,000 in fees. Not exactly chump change for any fee-earner. Negative goodwill ponies evidently don’t come cheap.
I have followed the debate on SFM doing my best to avoid the maudlin old Scouser who thinks Jesus and brass bands should be a firmament in football debate. Last time I checked Jesus did not study at The Juilliard.
One poster, I venture Steerpike in one of his many guises, is suggesting that CFC supporters were behind the febrile agitation. One could conjure up a number of legitimate lines of enquiry apropos material uncertainty with robust language. However the tone of Deloitte’s Dear John implies the use of a more industrial vernacular. Would how the fuck can you give the bastard child of liquidated clusterfuck a going concern green light be closer to the mark?
Phil Macgiollabhain ignited the debate with a cri de couer. He would have one facing down the malcontents. He advocated SFA involvement. Would he continue to lobby for governance intervention if members of his very own Republican Twitter Army were the perpetrators of the intimidation?
I have been warned not to challenge Phil Macgiollabhain on any matter as donations, that fell off a cliff yesterday despite a week of prodigious output, would dry up. Am I not allowed to engage in the debate?
From my perspective and personal experience there are two types of threats to individuals who offend ‘the klan.‘
There are opportunistic threats as was the case when individuals burnt out a car outside my apartment. It was not my car. However when three plain clothes policemen turned up at my door they left me in no doubt that I was the target.
Anonymity is a useful shield to ward off opportunistic attacks.
It’s no deterrent to the paramilitaries who have targeted your humble correspondent. These Orange Order members are ‘juiced in’ to police intelligence via their handlers in Special Branch. They know my identity and the address of my parents. These individuals are not cyber bullies. They are not sending bullets in the post. One of their number has killed on at least 38 occasions.
I’m not ‘heroically anonymous.’ Facing down faceless assassins with my pen evidently does not go far enough for the more ‘heroic’ in the social media milieu.
I have no need to consider The Thirty-Six Stratagems or The Art of War when anonymity and flight are my only recourses.
I digress. I opened this piece with an outline of a successful rights issue. There are those who believe that the Gerrard revolution will be underpinned by June’s foray into the unknown.
It may be worth recalling that in 2004 Sir Bribe & Lie initiated a £57m share issue, designed to wipe out a debt burden which had seen Rangers downsize their previous on-field ambitions. £51m was raised from the share issue, but £50m of this was underwritten by Murray and effectively transferred off Rangers’ books into his company, Murray International Holdings (MIH).
June’s rights issue will not be underwritten by either of the three bears or King. They are prohibited from any form of participation. These shares are not supported by any stock exchange ( LSE AIM for Green, Ofax for Murray) and as such their price is not derived from RIFC Plc’s performance. Alastair Johnston, illegally prompted by King, will pluck a figure from the ether but I would be inordinately surprised should the offer be fully subscribed.
I contend that on a See Saw featuring Charles Green’s IPO on one side and Lite’s get out of UEFA jail free card on the other, the independent directors would be up in the air, jockeying to avoid a hard Sir Bribe & Lie landing.
If only Deloitte had not done ‘walking away.’