Jump to content

 

 

BrahimHemdani

 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    11,099

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Everything posted by BrahimHemdani

  1. BrahimHemdani
    Kind of you to say so! Not sure I fully understand your question(s); but I'd say YES to the first. There are 65 million shares in issue, so right now the market capitalisation of the club is a bit under £20 million. Without getting involved in any of the old arguments, let's assume that RIFC plc and/or RFC Ltd do indeed own Ibrox Stadium and Murray Park; then as per the accounts Rangers assets are £64 million and net assets/shareholders funds £57 million. However, the club was purchased out of administration for £5.5 million. So at first glance the shares way undervalue the assets of the club but at second glance they may still way over value the club. BUT and it's a big BUT, shares like anything else, a house for example, are only worth what someone else will pay for them. There are loads of problems in valuing the shares of a football club, not the least of which is how would you realise the value in the stadium unless you sell it for houses or a supermarket say and what value are the players? £3.5 million according to the accounts. Want to take a bet that you could get £3.5 million for the entire Rangers squad? Another way of valuing shares is EPS (earnings per share). “Earnings” are dividends the company might pay if it makes a profit. So the price you will pay for a share reflects the forecast you or someone else might make about the profits and hence the dividends and the risk involved. Your forecast may be based on certain assumptions, e.g. winning the league, qualifying for Europe etc. So it is important to make accurate assumptions. But football clubs rarely make a profit because they are often run on sentimental rather than business lines and Rangers FC never paid me a dividend in the 30 years I held the shares; whenever they did make a profit they reinvested that money in the infrastructure or the team or both and I like most shareholders I was happy with that. The majority of today’s shareholders however are investors who care not a jot about the history or future of Rangers other than as a vehicle to make money, so their considerations are very different. In any event it would be very difficult to value the shares on an earnings basis. And these are just two considerations! So, is it possible that the price of the shares might go down to 10p, without a doubt it is. If the market takes such a dim view of Rangers prospects that the value of the assets falls still further or there is no prospect of a dividend being paid. However, I am sure that the vast majority of the investors are in this for a short term (say up to 5 years max) capital gain not long term income generation. They would have been looking at the prospect of buying assets on the cheap that would almost certainly become more valuable as and when Rangers return to Europe. If the shares were to go down to 10p or less then almost certainly many people would see that as a buying opportunity and that of itself may create more buyers and hence an increase in the price. If the price then quickly doubled to 20p many of those buyers might take their profit and sell just as quickly. A recent example was RBS. A company goes into administration if it is insolvent i.e. it can’t pay its debts; that is not directly related to its share price. News of trading difficulties may lead to a fall in the share price and ultimately to their suspension in the event of administration; but the fall in share prices is not the cause of the administration. I am not sure if I have answered you question(s) very well but hope the above helps.
  2. BrahimHemdani
    I must confess I don't look at the trades unless there's a specific reason for doing so as in the OP but yes that is definitely significant. Doesn't look like there are any buyers right now and that's not a big surprise.
  3. BrahimHemdani
    Trying to blame his son, just makes him an arse twice over.
  4. BrahimHemdani
    The share price reflects the market's view of the potential for the company's financial performance to improve with the ultimate aim of becoming profitable; curently the portents aren't that good. News of significant savings from the McCoist/Wallace meeting would help but don't seem very likely (although the management trio could lead the way by dropping a million on their combined wages). It certainly does matter to investors and potential investors. As posted here before Christmas, I heard talk of a new issue after the 120-day planning period at 30p/share but it would probably have to be less now. There have been a number of small sales yesterday and today for a few hundred pounds each which will have depressed the price in a limited market, possibly just some people paying off their Christmas presents; not necesarilly that significant.
  5. BrahimHemdani
    Thanks, I stand corrected. The only thing I can say in my favour is that I advised clients at the time not to deposit money in BCCI because I couldn't see where they were getting their ridiculously high interest rates from.
  6. BrahimHemdani
    With a 3-year option.
  7. BrahimHemdani
    Could hardly string two words together, had nothing else to listen to on the bus but switched it off.
  8. BrahimHemdani
    If I'm not mistaken hasn't that been done?
  9. BrahimHemdani
    We're stuck with him until 2016 unless Ally puts him in the team on a regular basis and he turns in great performances from now until the end of the season; then we MIGHT get rid in the summer.
  10. BrahimHemdani
    Thank you for that information although I am not certain that Mr Quinn would have been directly involved as he joined the BoE as an economist which was his PhD. My comment was simply based on the fact that he is qualified as an economist and had experience with the IMF as well as the BoE and as Chairman of the Celtic plc. The fact it is obvious where his allegiance would lie in Glasgow terms is another matter altogether and I make no comment on that, other than what I said about him recusing himself from any discussions involving Rangers.
  11. BrahimHemdani
    Firstly a correction if I may, which actually tends to prove your implication about Celtic rather than Rangers becoming "the establishment club" Peter Lawwell was recently elected to the main SFA Board and (as I pointed out elsewhere) astonishingly Eric Riley was elected to replace him on the SFA Professional Game Board. This gives Celtic two of the four elected positions outside the Office Bearers on the two main boards that control Scottish Senior Football. Secondly, it has to be said that Brian Quinn is eminently well qualified for the position on UEFA's Financial Fair Play Board; and if he were to be re-elected beyond June 2015, then he would surely have to recuse himself from any discussion involving Rangers. That said it is not entirely beyond the bounds of possibility that Rangers case could come up for special consideration if we were to win the Scottish Cup next year, before three year's accounts were published; but that combination is perhaps unlikely as it would require the SFA to make the case. Back to point 1. Returning to your main point however, consider this. Supporters Direct collects subscriptions and donations from Supporters Trusts and engages in other commercial activities to raise funds for its worthy objectives. It also receives an annual grant from the Cooperative Society. SD Scotland currently receives a grant from the Scottish Government. In turn SD deposits some or all of its surplus funds (or certainly did up to 2012) in the Cooperative Bank. A Bank takes deposits from its customers and lends the money out usually but not always at a significant margin to other customers who need to borrow money for one purpose or another. Whilst the 3.5% margin charged to the Labour Party may well cover its costs, it is highly unlikley that the 1.0% - 1.15% margin in the Celtic borrowings would cover the Bank's costs. This means that not only are the Supporters Trusts of other Clubs effectively lending money to Celtic FC but they are doing so at a loss which is being subsidised by the very Bank that their umbrella organisation is supporting with their money. Some questions for RST and other trusts to ask, perhaps? Lastly, I was certain there was something more to your final questions than met the eye and quick google revealed that the CEO of Greater Glasgow Health Board at the time of the sale of Lennox Castle to Celtic FC was one Tom Divers and so you might want to add the questions about the sale of Lennox Castle that were posed here http://footballtaxhavens.wordpress.com/2013/11/13/lennoxtown-sale-approved-solely-by-tom-divers-ceo-greater-glasgow-health-board/
  12. BrahimHemdani
    To be fair to RG193, there was a very strong implication in what you said: and he didn't say you stated it as a fact, he said which is not quite the same thing.
  13. BrahimHemdani
    Sorry don't read children's books, too scary or perhaps too close to the truth, so I'm told.
  14. BrahimHemdani
    HG Wells might not be far off. There's probably about a million analogies you could make with War of the (Ibrox Boardroom) Worlds.
  15. BrahimHemdani
    There also appear to be some similarities, paranoia being one.
  16. BrahimHemdani
    Am I correct in assuming that your post is a copy of something on the SOS FB page; please excuse me as I am old fashioned (as well as old) and don't have a FB account and don't really understand how it works. Or is this statement aimed at Gesnet users or perhaps both? Can I respectfully suggest that if you are copying from elsewhere you put the quote in italics or in quotation marks.
  17. BrahimHemdani
    Yes it is, it has everything to do with them. It is up to the Police to determine if in their opinion an offence has been committed and to present the evidence to the Procurator Fiscal who will then determine if charges are brought. I don't think you can blame the police for reporting the matter, in fact if they had not I think they would have been open to pretty strong criticism. The whole point of the Act was to create offences that hitherto could only be prosecuted as breach of the peace, into the realms of a football match and online communication. However, I agree that the fact that it is proving difficult to successfully prosecute such cases, is not the fault of the Police.
  18. BrahimHemdani
    And how exactly would you do that, no doubt Mr Wallace will be pleased to have your advice. If you were one of those you have listed would you leave now for a penny less than what you are due under your contract, I very much doubt it. And if you were a club who might be interested would you pay Rangers a fee for any of these players, I very much doubt it. The only possibility that I can see is that a club who are short in one of the positions MIGHT offer to pay part of a particular player's wages; but that's about as much as I think we can hope for right now. For example Smith is allegedly on £1,000 a week (and £500 if he plays) for "handing out the oranges at half time"; nice work if you can get it.
  19. BrahimHemdani
    This is the relevant section of the Act: 6 Threatening communications (1)A person commits an offence if— (a)the person communicates material to another person, and (b)either Condition A or Condition B is satisfied. (2)Condition A is that— (a)the material consists of, contains or implies a threat, or an incitement, to carry out a seriously violent act against a person or against persons of a particular description, (b)the material or the communication of it would be likely to cause a reasonable person to suffer fear or alarm, and ©the person communicating the material— (i)intends by doing so to cause fear or alarm,or (ii)is reckless as to whether the communication of the material would cause fear or alarm. (3)For the purposes of Condition A, where the material consists of or includes an image (whether still or moving), the image is taken to imply a threat or incitement such as is mentioned in paragraph (a) of subsection (2) if— (a)the image depicts or implies the carrying out of a seriously violent act (whether actual or fictitious) against a person or against persons of a particular description (whether the person or persons depicted are living or dead or actual or fictitious), and (b)a reasonable person would be likely to consider that the image implies the carrying out of a seriously violent act against an actual person or against actual persons of a particular description. (4)Subsection (3) does not affect the generality of subsection (2)(a). (5)Condition B is that— (a)the material is threatening, and (b)the person communicating it intends by doing so to stir up hatred on religious grounds. (6)It is a defence for a person charged with an offence under subsection (1) to show that the communication of the material was, in the particular circumstances, reasonable. (7)A person guilty of an offence under subsection (1) is liable— (a)on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 5 years, or to a fine, or to both, or (b)on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12 months, or to a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum, or to both. So there wouldn't appear to be any reasonable doubt that A (a) was satisfied and the purpose of the fiscal's question about Lennon was to establish the "fear and alarm" required by A(b) (and note this is where the OBA meets and intends to extend breach of the peace into the realm of the internet). However, the Sherriff appears to have been satsified that there was no intent to cause fear and alarm, nor was Mr Hay reckless as to whether the communication of the material would cause fear or alarm; so either or both A© (i) or (ii) were not satisfied. B(a) also appears to be satisfied but the Sheriff's ruling indicates that B(b) was not inasmuch as there was no intent "to stir up hatred on religious grounds". The verdict in this case shows once again that this legislation is very poorly drafted; but nonetheless I am fairly sure that the Crown Office would have been confident of a conviction under the "reckless" clause and may well appeal. There is no question in my mind that the intent was to catch exactly this type of situation: a death (or other serious) threat posted online, whether it was meant to be serious or not. I am a not a lawyer but it seems to me that if A© had started regardless of whether "the person communicating the material"; or the "and" at the end of B(a) was "or" it might have been a different story. In any event it was a stupid thing to do, particulary given all the publicity at the time; and we should not be congratulating Mr Hay for getting off, far from it.
  20. BrahimHemdani
    30 June 2014 http://www.transfermarkt.com/en/steve-simonsen/profil/spieler_3583.html
  21. BrahimHemdani
    I thought the meeting was supposed to be yesterday?
  22. BrahimHemdani
    You would have thought that Turkish Airlines would have sent their best plane for them; but perhaps that was the problem? Not the best publicity for Turkish either way. If Celtic chartered from someone else WHY didn't they use Turkish; if they DID and the plane went technical, that would be a rather big whoops I'd say.
  23. BrahimHemdani
    Thanks, thought I would have to do a penance (not literally, of course) to get off; much appreciated.
  24. BrahimHemdani
    Hmmm, see what I can do.....
  25. BrahimHemdani
    Zappa, could I possibly change to Arbroath v Rangers on 29 March rather than Rangers v Arbroath on 25 Jan; it's just that the intro I have in mind works much better for the game at Arbroath.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.