Jump to content

Sevco Thread


Recommended Posts


 

Obviously?

How so?

 

The boy JohnJames agrees with Phil MiFarterGobbler.

 

You have a better source or handle on the situation than they do then?

 

I have exactly as much source or handle on the situation as they do, which is absolutely fuck all.

 

The reason that valuation is obviously bullshit is that it would value the entire company at £3.26m (that is, 81,478,201 shares @ 4p / share)

 

At the last balance sheet date, the net assets of the company were £42.5m. If you ignore intangible assets, you get an asset value of £27.6m.

 

So you could close the club tomorrow and liquidate the assets and end up with £27.6m, a valuation of 34p per share. (Obviously this would be a slightly different number because this is based on a June '16 balance sheet, but it won't be far off.)

 

That's why valuing the shares at 4p each is horse/bull shit, even if they were going bust this afternoon.

Link to comment

 

I have exactly as much source or handle on the situation as they do, which is absolutely fuck all.

 

The reason that valuation is obviously bullshit is that it would value the entire company at £3.26m (that is, 81,478,201 shares @ 4p / share)

 

At the last balance sheet date, the net assets of the company were £42.5m. If you ignore intangible assets, you get an asset value of £27.6m.

 

So you could close the club tomorrow and liquidate the assets and end up with £27.6m, a valuation of 34p per share. (Obviously this would be a slightly different number because this is based on a June '16 balance sheet, but it won't be far off.)

 

That's why valuing the shares at 4p each is horse/bull shit, even if they were going bust this afternoon.

 

Take your completely reasonable posting elsewhere.

Link to comment

 

I'm a fucking dope.

 

 

The maximum amount of points they can get is 77, we're on course for 63.6 points. We're more than safe! Not a chance they're making up enough points and goals to overtake us. We're as good as 9 points clear with 10 games to go! Go win/draw/win/draw etc. til the end of the season and we're sorted.

Our post split form from the last few seasons means is not done and dusted for 2nd. Hopefully increase the gap while Pedro changes their tactics again, being their 3rd manager of the season, making post split matches irrelevant.

Link to comment

Yet they sold the whole lot for £5.5m in 2012 so there must be bullshit values on that balance sheet.

The "basket of assets" was worth more than that though. That's what's been dragging through the courts for years as it was undersold leaving creditors with bugger all.

Link to comment

 

I have exactly as much source or handle on the situation as they do, which is absolutely fuck all.

 

The reason that valuation is obviously bullshit is that it would value the entire company at £3.26m (that is, 81,478,201 shares @ 4p / share)

 

At the last balance sheet date, the net assets of the company were £42.5m. If you ignore intangible assets, you get an asset value of £27.6m.

 

So you could close the club tomorrow and liquidate the assets and end up with £27.6m, a valuation of 34p per share. (Obviously this would be a slightly different number because this is based on a June '16 balance sheet, but it won't be far off.)

 

That's why valuing the shares at 4p each is horse/bull shit, even if they were going bust this afternoon.

 

What about any debts they have? Does this not need to be taken into account?

Link to comment

 

I have exactly as much source or handle on the situation as they do, which is absolutely fuck all.

 

 

I certainly agree with part of that.. the bit about you having no handle on it.

This is very clear.

 

Whether those guys know or do not know what they are talking about, given they apparently live and breathe the ins and outs of Sevco and their finances is a lot less certain.

Link to comment

Leave CraegDAMH alone.

 

As long as he's got someone lined up to come along and pay £42m for the properties plus sufficient working capital for the future operation of the team, expectations and all, on the strict understanding that there will be precisely zero return on that up-front investment then his valuation is bang on.

 

FWIW I don't think its 4p either mind.

Link to comment

 

I certainly agree with part of that.. the bit about you having no handle on it.

This is very clear.

 

Whether those guys know or do not know what they are talking about, given they apparently live and breathe the ins and outs of Sevco and their finances is a lot less certain.

 

What are their financial credentials exactly? Other than having a blog, what qualifies them to value companies?

Link to comment

Leave CraegDAMH alone.

 

As long as he's got someone lined up to come along and pay £42m for the properties plus sufficient working capital for the future operation of the team, expectations and all, on the strict understanding that there will be precisely zero return on that up-front investment then his valuation is bang on.

 

FWIW I don't think its 4p either mind.

 

I said the assets are worth more than 4p a share. I never said anything about running it as a going concern. More pish from you.

Link to comment

 

Dinna ask me. They don't have any? Or maybe they do?

 

They document sources from London's square mile within their blogs.

 

"My mates fae London" isn't a source. And what magical sources do these boys in London have that tell them the value of the shares? Anyone in London would be looking at the same numbers I just showed you.

Link to comment

Using net assets is difficult for a football club, since the value of stadium, training ground, player registrations and brand (valued at £16m!) only really stand at that value when the club is a functioning football club. We know the real market valuation of that from almost 5 years back, £5.5m. No-one came in with a better offer. There was some quite spectacular accounting done in the 2013 accounts, around negative goodwill on the purchase, as well as revaluation of the stadium which has really boosted the net asset position.

 

Also, it is a bit difficult to use accounts that are 9 months out of date, when we are none the wiser what has happened since.

 

4p doesn't seem to far a stretch when there has been no value generation in the history of the group. Always hard to tell when there is no marketplace for shares, but I don't think many valuation methods would come out at a high overall market valuation, apart from the use of net assets.

 

Buying for £3.2m, then immediately having to repay £9m (plus the movement since June 16) in loans doesn't seem that much of a stretch surely, for something that needs as heavy investment to compete as they do?

Link to comment

"And I'll tell you, honestly, I will love it if we beat them. Love it.....Kevin Keegan 1996

 

I would love it ...just love it if Aberdeen were to face The Rangers in the Cup final after securing second spot and hammering the twats 5-0 at Hampden in the final.

 

:sheepdance:

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment

Using net assets is difficult for a football club, since the value of stadium, training ground, player registrations and brand (valued at £16m!) only really stand at that value when the club is a functioning football club. We know the real market valuation of that from almost 5 years back, £5.5m. No-one came in with a better offer. There was some quite spectacular accounting done in the 2013 accounts, around negative goodwill on the purchase, as well as revaluation of the stadium which has really boosted the net asset position.

 

Also, it is a bit difficult to use accounts that are 9 months out of date, when we are none the wiser what has happened since.

 

4p doesn't seem to far a stretch when there has been no value generation in the history of the group. Always hard to tell when there is no marketplace for shares, but I don't think many valuation methods would come out at a high overall market valuation, apart from the use of net assets.

 

Buying for £3.2m, then immediately having to repay £9m (plus the movement since June 16) in loans doesn't seem that much of a stretch surely, for something that needs as heavy investment to compete as they do?

 

So the disputed market value (going through the courts just now to the tune of £30m...) of something 5 years ago is a better metric for valuing something than its latest balance sheet?

 

And yes, the stadium and training ground have been valued on a cash flows basis and the residual value of these is likely to be lower. It would have to be valued at c.£10 million to make the 4p valuation remotely accurate.

 

Bear in mind £15m of the 'liabilities' is deferred revenue and much of that will have been unwound by now.

Link to comment

Well, I'd say it is quite relevant as it is the only time it has been on the open market, albeit 5 years ago. It was valued on the balance sheet at significantly more than that in Oldco's accounts, so I don't see why you'd be so reliant on it now? Even if it is disputed that the liquidators didn't get the value correctly before, where is the queue of people who tried to purchase this since? If there was real value in it, I am sure Charles Green and co would happily have flipped it early on.

 

The deferred revenues will have unwound, but the expectation would be that the trade debtors are almost at £nil just now as well, given the biggest chunk of it is in relation to season ticket sales on payment plans or through merchant services.

 

This is looking at history anyway, market valuation is partially based on that, but more based on future, as I am sure you know. Where is the value generation going to come in the near future? It has hemorrhaged cash since entering division 3 and even by the information contained within the accounts, under going concern, it will continue to so in 2016/17 and most probably 2017/18. Short of Champions League qualification, that situation isn't going to change, so you need further substantial investment or to completely change the outlook for the future (I will bet you value in calculations have a sharp rise in the latter years to some form of regular European football runs). I'm not saying 4p is a reasonable figure, but if you are looking for someone to come in and buy the whole club just now, settling all soft loans and investing in the club to keep it going, I'd be surprised if you'd get anyone willing to spend much more than £10-15m on it.

Link to comment

What outcome can come of this, with regards the current Sevco club ?

With the current people running Scottish football, irrespective of the outcome, nothing will change EPK.

 

Outcome 1, this is what should happen:

HMRC win the appeal and they reclaim all unpaid tax due on the use of EBTs/DOS.

These were tax free loans used to entice better players to sign for Rangers IL which they otherwise couldn't afford. These loans were issued as a side letter which should have been submitted with the players contracts to the SFA/SPL. Rangers IL knew this was against the rules, but hid the letters anyway. Cheating. (The then president/secretary at the SFA, Campbell Ogilvie, who at the time the EBTs first became apparent, said he knew nothing about EBTs, when in fact, when he was the secretary of Rangers IL, he had an EBT. You couldn't make it up.)

HMRC, on winning the appeal will then chase the employees with side letters for all tax due, which is £millions.

 

The SFA/SPFL as it is now, should then investigate all matches played where Rangers IL used players with EBTs, cheating, and award each game 3-0 to the other team, and strip all honours won during that time. These were the rules at the time.

This is where the current Sevco abomination should suffer.

 

When Charles Green Sevco 5088, bought a basket of assets from the liquidators, part of the assets included Rangers IL history.

There was a 5 way agreement formed by the SFA,SPL,SFL, Sevco and Rangers IL, that for admission to the SFL division 3, Sevco had to cover all Rangers IL footballing debts, which included a £250k fine for EBT usage. (Doesn't that seem quite a low fine? Apparently not, as the players weren't illegally registered, but imperfectly registered, there is a difference, according to the SFA. You couldn't make it up.)

So Sevco 5088, then became Sevco Scotland, who then became The Rangers Football Club, bought the history and everyone lived happily ever after, same club, most successful team in the world, WATP, right? Our very own chairman even stated we should all move on, nothing to see. Does that make cheating ok?

So the current Sevco, after title stripping, should amend their "history" that they purchased, to reflect the EBT years, as its the same club, right? Sorted.

Or could the current Sevco admit that they are a new club, and put 3 Scottish league titles and a Petrofac cup as their history? Wouldn't the truth be refreshing?

 

Outcome 2,

HMRC lose their appeal, and the current Sevco abonmation remain the same club, most successful team in the world, WATP, move on.

 

For those who bang on about an obsession, maybe it is, but we should never accept cheating to gain an advantage over other clubs, our club included, and the SFA cover it up in any way they can, to benefit one club.

 

If HMRC win, everything should be done to right the blatant cheating, follow the rules, its simple really.

Only in bigoted blue tinted glasses is the truth so wrong.

  • Upvote 4
Link to comment

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...