An Honest Game? Convince Us.


Campbellsmoney, Ive found your explanation of the incorporation process particularly interesting. …

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


Ive found your explanation of the incorporation process particularly interesting. Phrases such as the club “becomes” a company at incorporation would never raise an eyebrow in most other situations, but – for not the first time – everything is not what always what is seems when it comes to this sevco saga!

burghbhoy Also Commented

An Honest Game? Convince Us.
HirsutePursuit says:
April 6, 2014 at 10:00 am

I think you are right that, in common speech, incorporation re. fitba does see the club “become” a company in the sense that everything the club did/was comprised of, people/property/purpose/business, team in competitions etc… does continue as was albeit with a organisation re-jig.

However, in terms of the “legal entity” that is a particular company, that owns X, is contracted to pay Y, receives a transfer of membership to undertake Z – there is no doubt that legal entity is new – IT did not exist prior to incorporation.

Otherwise, if it was the same entity just with a different status awarded to it, there would be no need for it to have assets/property transferred to it, or for it to acquire membership of the football association, recruit shareholders etc.

Recent Comments by burghbhoy

Redistribution of Football Income – The Human Dilemma
Big Pink says:
September 9, 2015 at 9:31 am

Clearly this site is all about discussion, so I hope you won’t mind me pointing out your logic does not hold for those who do not first accept the ‘club indistinguishable from its legal entity’ premise.

“If Rangers was, (as even the most succulent of our crayon-scribbling friends agree) “put into administration”, then it follows (assuming there is a single figure brain-cell count in your head) that Rangers were also liquidated.”

That simply does not follow IF you happen to identify the club, to any extent, in terms of the “business”, or a collective term for the group of assets/people operating in such fashion. The SP(F)L Rules (“A Share [as held by NewCo/OldCo/Celtic PLC] may only be held by [an entity] who is the owner and operator of a Club”) happen to fall into this category.

“If the business was put into administration, then it follows that the business was also liquidated.”

That is statement is therefore false, because we know a business/assets/staff can be sold/transferred by administrators prior to the company that operated them being passed to liquidators.

If one begins from the ‘club indistinguishable from its legal entity’ premise, then of course liquidated company = liquidated club with no possible exceptions. However I think it’s fair to recognise that where the starting premise is different, that logic does not apply.

Redistribution of Football Income – The Human Dilemma
Auldheid says:
Blog Writer:
September 9, 2015 at 1:51 am

Many of your posts are of the flavour “UEFA have serious rules excluding clubs who newco/drop debts from competition for 3 years – why don’t the SFA?”

May I ask you this. Do you know ANY domestic football association that has such a rule in place? I’d suggest your answer would be none, for one simple premise you seem to miss: Football governing bodies/the law of the land have no desire to extinguish a football club and its business – the exact oppsoite in fact.

Take Rangers for instance. A business that employs 100s, serves many 1000s, trades with many other businesses. Forget specifics of identity/history, the law is designed to allow that business to be preserved, even if the legal entity operating it has failed. Football rules echo this, and the 2012 saga has – at least broadly speaking – played out in that fashion.

UEFA are not a domestic football body – they run lucrative european competitions that 99% of well-run clubs can operate without. They can afford to exclude clubs for 3 years knowing that UEFA compeititon is not – and should not – be an essential aspect to that club’s fundamental existence.

Domestic bodies? Entirely different. Week-in week-out domestic football is a club’s meat and drink. To have similar draconian punishments to UEFA would simply be a death knell to clubs – the businesses – hit by them. And that is entirely counter to the motives of not only domestic football bodies, but the law of the land. They must balance some degree of deterrence – points penalties, demotion – with the aim of preservation.

Redistribution of Football Income – The Human Dilemma
Sergio Biscuits says:
September 8, 2015 at 2:35 pm

You are unfortunately mistaken.

According to the Rules, and subsequently Lord Nimmo Smith’s report, the owner and operator of the Club was OldCo – the entity in liquidation, and now Newco.

The Articles state:
“19. A Share may only be issued, allotted, transferred to or held by a Trustee or a person
who is the owner and operator of a Club.”

The current holder of that share is NewCo. Prior to its transfer to The Dundee Football Club Ltd, an SPL share was held by OldCo.

In each case, the rules are unambiguous. Those entities were the “owner and operator of the Club”.

Redistribution of Football Income – The Human Dilemma
Regarding “Laudrup-gate”, the interview was one of a series called Sport Talk. Here’s a link to the other episodes, some interesting ones there: From Larsson, to Barry Hearn, to Sergei Baltacha – doesn’t seem the criteria for choosing interviewees is particularly restrictive!

I seem to be one of the few Rangers fans with a soft spot for Tom English. Don’t always agree with him but seems genuinely non-partisan and a step removed from the Glasgow/fitba bubble. I hope he hangs around at the BBC.

Redistribution of Football Income – The Human Dilemma
nawlite says:
September 6, 2015 at 10:58 pm

It’s part of a series. He did Henrik larrson a week or two ago. Im not aware of either episode being part of a wider conspiracy.

And do you think he’d tell us if it was 😉

About the author