An Honest Game? Convince Us.

Avatar By

Auldheid says: April 2, 2014 at 4:25 pm 1 …

Comment on An Honest Game? Convince Us. by Campbellsmoney.

Auldheid says:
April 2, 2014 at 4:25 pm
1 0 i
Rate This


Probably but perhaps to encourage other football administrators not to play more for the football team than the creditors?


According to Voltaire, the British Navy were in the habit of executing an admiral from time to time “pour encourager les autres”.

I don’t think other insolvency practitioners truly need a BDO report to tell them where their duties actually lie.

Campbellsmoney Also Commented

An Honest Game? Convince Us.
RyanGosling says:
April 5, 2014 at 5:18 pm
2 0 i
Rate This

I think we should set up an independent inquiry to allow campbellsmoney and slimshady to argue the merits of their respective interpretations of the law.

I have two queries about the commissioning of such an inquiry – who gets to set the terms of reference? – and who will be Sandy Bryson?

An Honest Game? Convince Us.
EKBhoy says:
April 5, 2014 at 5:10 pm
5 0 i
Rate This

Returning to a previous theme if I may.

After a quick round of arithmetical gymnastics , I make it 13 days to the end of the 120 day review period at Ibrox. Pure speculation , but I suspect that nothing will be heard until after the last league on 3 May , Rangers pick up another trophy (?) , and I believe it is 50 / 50 that they go into administration the following Tuesday 6 May.

They are hoping for a quickie admin , all set for a new season with the points deducted from this year’s campaign. It will be interesting now that the Lower leagues are not run by the brothers , to see if Rangers essentially getaway scot-free from a 25 point penalty. It should be 25 points as their re-incarnation in a football sense centred around a transfer of club membership and they had to stump up money owed for transfers etc, ergo it follows that in football terms from the SFA’s perspective, it is 25 points.

A summer of turmoil at Ibrox is inevitable, ground and training pitch will be sold & leaseback to real rangers men who will run the club into the ground again.

Can someone remind us – when does one season end and another season begin? The specific date in 2014 would be helpful.

An Honest Game? Convince Us.

If we look at partnerships – let’s stay away from clubs – that is an emotive word on here.

Slim and CM walk into a lawyer’s office. They are in a partnership (Slim&CM). they say to the lawyer – “we want to incorporate” the partnership. Ok says the lawyer. Here is what we do:

(a) Incorporate a new company (Slim & CM Limited)
(b) Draft a Business and asset transfer agreement between (1) Slim & CM and (2) Slim & CM Limited; and
(c) Dissolve the partnership at a later date when its liabilities have been dealt with.

Do you agree with that?

If an LLP can incorporate into a limited company can you give me an example of that. Just give me a company name and number and I will go into Companies House and have a look and if I understand what you say, you are suggesting that in that company’s history it will show that it used to be an LLP. Is that what you mean? I don’t think that is possible. I could be wrong – I have been wrong plenty of times before. It will be easy enough to find out if I am wrong – just let me have a company name and number where this has happened.

Like most lawyers in the UK I was once a partner in a general partnership (under the 1890 Partnership Act) and my partners and I agreed that we should take advantage of limited liability and move to LLP status. But that is a colloquial use of the word “incorporate” – we probably even used the phrase “incorporate the partnership” ourselves when describing what we did – but only because it is a convenient shorthand way of describing the steps (a), (b) and (c) above.

The transferring entity (the one that is being described as “incorporating”) does not vanish from existence the moment the transferee entity comes into existence, nor does it change into the transferree entity. Immediately after the transfer, the partnership, in my example, still exists. It will subsequently be dissolved as no one will have any use for it – but it dies as a consequence of dissolution not because of any “incorporation”.

I can see that this topic (which is only tangentially related to football anyway) is taking up way too much space on this blog – for which I apologise.

But slimshady – can you give me that company name/number please.

Recent Comments by Campbellsmoney

.. and they wonder why nobody buys papers
I was in The 20 Horseshoe

Did Stewart Regan Ken Then Wit We Ken Noo?

I really can’t explain what you have asked with any certainty but here are some thoughts and comments.

We can’t be sure that the claim is by DK.

In a CVA, it is necessary to get 75% of creditors to vote in favour. But it is also necessary to get 50% of unconnected creditors to vote in favour. Directors claims will be treated as connected.

There is no reason why a creditor should not, if they want to, not claim in A CVA but later decide to submit a claim in the liquidation. It would be unusual but not prohibited.

As for how an investment in equity in one company can later become a claim to be a creditor in another company – that I simply cannot explain. I can only suggest that we do not have all the necessary facts.

Did Stewart Regan Ken Then Wit We Ken Noo?
Resinlabdog well said sir (or madam).

Anyone out there want to discuss what the phrase “sense of entitlement ” might mean when it is not being used about a team from Govan?

BigPink – :”phoenix” companies has no meaning in law. None whatsoever. So if Sir David Murray, Craig Whyte, John Greig, Bill Struth and Lawrence Marlborough all get appointed to the board of either of the companies currently trading as Rangers, it matters little. What do you think will (or perhaps should) “trigger “?

Did Stewart Regan Ken Then Wit We Ken Noo?

Are you Bob Crampsey? 🙂


Did Stewart Regan Ken Then Wit We Ken Noo?
Regarding 216 again (sorry )

Even if Sevco had not changed its name, 216 would still apply because the company trades as Rangers. 216 strikes at trading names as well as company names.

Mr King has made great play today of how s216 is a little known piece of legislation. And how the old board have referred to it.

His intention in doing so is of course to suggest that but for the old board raising the issue, he would not have had to bother going through the court to get leave to be involved in a Rangers company.

Well funnily enough, the law applies whether or not anyone knows about it. In fact, if he didn’t know about it until the old board mentioned it he should perhaps say thank you.

About the author