It has been over two weeks since Rod McKenzie of Harper MacLeod was good enough to respond to our letter in our previous blog concerning documents withheld from the SPL lawyers charged with the commissioning of an Independent Enquiry into the incorrect registration of players with the SFA by Rangers F.C.
His response, which was published on 14th March, fully explained the position of Harper Macleod with regard to side letters but the final para in the reply asked:
“Accordingly, I am not clear in what respects it is being suggested that the Commission was “misled” as regards any of the Specified Players in particular and/or in relation to the participation of Specified Players in EBT Payments and Arrangements in connection with the Rangers Employee Benefit Trust.
For the Commission to have been misled it would be necessary for it to have been induced into a false belief by the actions or inactions of a party and/or third party and for it to have relied on that false belief in coming to its various decisions.”
Since its publication on the previous blog there have been various comments by TSFM contributors that have looked at the full response as well as the final paragraph. Using those (and with the help of specialist input for which we are all grateful), our reply has been constructed and mailed to Mr McKenzie, and copied to the SPFL CEO and the members of the SPFL Board.
Whilst not the most entertaining prose ever to have appeared on TSFM, our reply is an exhaustive and comprehensive commentary of our views and conclusions, and takes the form of detailed responses highlighted in bold/italics to the issues mentioned in Mr McKenzie’s letter, together with a covering letter summarising those points and the conclusion they lead to.
What happens next is an opportunity for those in charge of Scottish Football’s to convince us that our game is indeed an honest one, honestly led. A game where honesty and integrity in all its forms take precedence over convenience, commercialism and dishonesty.
It represents a challenge not only to football authorities but to the silent Scottish main stream media to ask the questions that will set the record straight without fear or favour. Let’s have the truth and no more lies and concealment. Mistakes have been made, it is time they were admitted and explained. Maybe then, from a position of honesty, our game can move onwards and upwards, for it is our game, the supporters’ game.
The governors and media are but the custodians.
Harper MacLeod
The Ca’d’oro
45 Gordon Street
Glasgow G1 3PE
29 March 2014
Dear Mr Mackenzie
The Lord Nimmo Smith Inquiry (“the Inquiry”)
I refer to your letter received on 14th March in response to my letter which was posted to you on February 19, 2014. I am very grateful to you and your client that you have been able to respond.
I enclose with this letter comments and observations highlighted in bold/italics on the points raised in your letter with our references to the Decision in grey. The purpose of this letter is to summarize those comments and their importance.
The key issues that require to be addressed coming out of the Inquiry are as follows:-
(a) the decision taken at some point between March 5, 2012 (when the Commission was announced) and August 2012 to restrict the scope of the Inquiry to matters arising only on or after November 23, 2000 and thus to exclude any matters in the period from July 1, 1998 to November 22, 2000 (“the Earlier Period”). I would understand the decision to restrict the scope of the Inquiry to have been taken as a result of the failure by the administrators of Oldco to provide necessary and key documentation relating to the Earlier Period.
(b) the decision to treat the MGMRT and the earlier REBT (“the Earlier Trust”) as one and the same. At para 35, the Decision states “we are not aware that they were different trusts”. Given that the Decision (in the immediately prior sentence) states that the MGMRT had been “preceded” by the Earlier Trust, It is not easy to understand how the authors of the Decision can then state that they are “unaware” that they were different trusts.
The decisions to (i) exclude the Earlier Period; and (ii) to treat both trusts as indivisible, had important consequences.
From the Decision (para 40), it would appear that the President of the SFA gave evidence only as to his knowledge of the MGMRT (not the Earlier Trust). The annexes provided with my original letter, clearly show that the President had knowledge of the Earlier Trust (and indeed was active in its setting up). I am obviously unaware of the extent to which the President was in fact examined on any issue relating to the Earlier Trust.
It is stated in the Decision (at para 104) that the Inquiry proceeded on the basis that the EBT arrangements (by which it meant the use of the MGMRT) were “lawful”. It could do so (at least partly) as a result of the outcome of the FTT decision which was announced in November 2012.
Because the Inquiry treated the MGMRT and the Earlier Trust as one and the same, this meant that the Inquiry failed to distinguish between the two trusts and necessarily treated the Earlier Trust as also being lawful (without however having properly investigated its operation). However, the MGMRT and the Earlier Trust were two separate trusts and there was no necessary reason to treat them as one and the same. Had evidence relating to the Earlier Period been produced and examined, the Inquiry could hardly have treated them as “the same trust”
By the time of the Inquiry, Oldco had already conceded liability in what has become known as “the Wee Tax Case” (which related to the Earlier Trust). Having regard to the wording at para 104 of the Decision (where it is said that to arrange financial affairs in a manner “within the law” is not a breach of the SFA/SPL Rules) the clear implication, must be that to arrange financial affairs in such a way that they are not lawful, is a breach of the rules.
Given the admission of liability in the Wee Tax Case, payments made in respect of the Earlier Trust were not “lawful” (to employ the language used in the Decision).
It will be obvious from the above that the importance of the Earlier Trust has been masked as a result of:-
(a) the failure by the administrators of Oldco to provide the documentation required of them;
(b) the decision to restrict the scope of the Inquiry; and
(c) the failure of the President of the SFA to provide to the Inquiry his own knowledge of, involvement in, and understanding of, the position relating to the Earlier Trust.
Had the Earlier Trust been the sole subject of the Inquiry (rather than in effect not being examined at all) the following must have been different:-
(i) the President could hardly have failed to give testimony of his knowledge and involvement;
(ii) the Inquiry could not have held that the use of the Earlier Trust was lawful;
(iii) given the clear history of deliberate non-disclosure by Oldco/its controllers, it is not easy to see how paragraph 107 (wherein it is stated that there is “no question of dishonesty”) can have remained;
(iv) given the use of payment arrangements to employees that were not “lawful”, no other member clubs could have used such arrangements. This raises the issue of a “sporting advantage” having been obtained.
In the circumstances, given the information now available to your clients, the Earlier Period cannot remain unexamined. There is no reason why such period should be excluded from any scrutiny.
The Decision requires to be revisited with the Earlier Period forming part of the Inquiry or alternatively, the Earlier Period should now be the subject of a separate inquiry.
This letter, a copy of which has also been sent by e-mail and comments will be published on our Scottish Football Monitor web site and a reply should be sent to our e mail address at (address supplied). Copies have been sent to the SPFL CEO and SPFL Board members by e mail and/or hard copy.
Yours faithfully
TSFM
Dear Sir,
I confirm receipt of your undated letter, addressed to me and copied to Mr Doncaster which I have discussed with my client. I do not know your name or address or the position which you have with the TSFM and am unable to address you as other than ‘Sir’.
The SPL Commission Decision of 28 February 2013 (“the Decision”) deals, amongst other matters, with the failure by “Oldco” (as defined in the Decision) to provide relevant information at Issue 4 on page 33 of the Decision.
Whilst I was only able to secure and provide to the Commission copies of a number of the ‘side letters’ the list of those players who had received such letters was in the public domain and for the purposes of the ‘Issues’ before the Commission it was not suggested by Oldco or Newco that the fundamentals of the side letters were significantly different over the 10 years or so that Oldco had given such letters to each of the individual players involved.
Whilst the role of the side letters (or side agreements in HMRC terminology) per se might fundamentally have been the same in terms of the ebt arrangements, there were two types of ebt involved in the specified period from 1 July 1998. It would appear from para 35 of the Decision that no evidence was led to distinguish between the two trusts even although the President of the SFA (one of the witnesses) clearly had that knowledge, having established the Rangers Employee Benefit Trust (REBT) and later been a beneficiary of the Murray Group Management Remuneration Trust. (MGMRT). Equally Oldco had that knowledge.
The Commission was provided with evidence regarding the existence of both the Murray Group Management Remuneration Trust and the Rangers Employee Benefit Trust. This is referred to at paragraph 35 of the Decision. The Commission chose in its Decision to group these together as “MGMRT”.
Was the evidence provided the same as the evidence supplied with the TSFM letter of 19th February?
If it was the same evidence why was the fact that at least two players were involved in a type of scheme which was found by an FTT to be outside the rules (and so payments using it to be irregular and whose operation was described by HMRC as either fraudulent or negligent), not used to raise questions on which SPL rules were broken and why? At para 104 of the Decision it is stated that it is not
“ a breach of SPL or SFA rules for a club to arrange its affairs – within the law- so as to minimise its tax liabilities”
The payments to those two players were accepted by Oldco as having not been in conformity with the law. That would imply a very serious breach of Rules.
If the evidence provided on 19th February by TSFM was not supplied in March 2012, did the failure of Oldco or Newco to clarify at any time and especially when asked to provide documentation that would do so, not mislead the directions given to the SPL and so the terms of reference for the Independent Commission?
Both are referred to in the published accounts of Oldco and copies of those accounts were provided to the Commission.
Did the accounts provided to the Commission make a distinction between regular payments and irregular payments or give any indication that there was a difference between the schemes that would have led anyone to consider that they should not be treated as continuous?
“We note that the MGMRT was preceded by the Rangers Employee Benefit Trust, but we are not aware that they were different trusts. We shall treat them as a continuous trust, which we shall refer to throughout as the MGMRT.”
This seems a very odd decision. One trust is preceded by another trust and yet the Commission decided to treat them as one continuous trust.
If the documents accompanying the letter of 19th February, which were specifically requested in respect of ebts and any correspondence relating to them, had been provided to the SPL would Harper MacLeod still have advised the SPL in the way that they did, and would the terms of reference have remained as initially envisaged in the SPL announcement of 5th March 2012 i.e. starting from 1st July 1998?
I refer you to the Annex to the Decision which includes six lists of Specified Players, 1A, 1B, 2A, 2B, 3A and 3B. The numbering relates to 3 periods during which different regulatory regimes applied. The A reference is to players for whom we had a copy “side letter” and the B reference is to players for whom we did not have a copy of a side letter but in respect of whom there was other evidence that a side letter had been issued by Oldco. The Commission proceeded on the basis that with respect to the Issues the position of all of the Specified Players was the same except where specifically identified in the documents and other evidence.
The Commission was provided with copies of “side letters” relating to the players whose names appears in the A lists of Specified Players and whilst the Commission and I did not have copies of the side letters for those players whose names appear on the B lists, the evidence of side letters having been issued by Oldco to each of the players listed in the three groups of B Specified Players was also disclosed to the Commission.
At paragraph 36 of the Decision the Commission held that the same general arrangements applied in respect of all of the Specified Players whilst the details and precise form of the individual side letters varied over the years.
Since the involvement of Specified Players in EBT Payments and Arrangements with Oldco and the existence of side letters given to each of them was known to the Commission and included in the Decision it is not readily apparent what substantive new allegations with respect to the actions of Oldco in relation to EBT Payments and Arrangements under the earlier Rangers Employee Benefit Trust so far as relates to the Issues are now being made.
Your letter does not suggest that the scheme of the EBT Payments and Arrangements was different as between the first and second trusts and associated sub-trusts so far as concerns the player registration matters with which Issues 1, 2 & 3 were concerned. The Commission does not suggest in the Decision that it determined the Issues before it on the basis that any of the Specified Players had not been part of EBT Payments and Arrangements during the period of their employment by Oldco and/or that one or more of them had not received a side letter from Oldco.
Accordingly, I am not clear in what respects it is being suggested that the Commission was “misled” as regards any of the Specified Players in particular and/or in relation to the participation of Specified Players in EBT Payments and Arrangements in connection with the Rangers Employee Benefit Trust.
For the Commission to have been misled it would be necessary for it to have been induced into a false belief by the actions or inactions of a party and/or third party and for it to have relied on that false belief in coming to its various decisions.
It is accepted that for the reasons given the missing side letter of 30 August for R De Boer is not of itself significant in the findings of the Commission as it was commissioned and that had it been supplied originally and the scope of the Commission been set to begin from 30 August rather than 23rd November, the Decision would have been the same.
However the information provided on 19th February shows that the failure of Duff and Phelps (who were of course at that point, the sole controllers of Oldco) to provide all the documentation requested and the subsequent failure of the investigation process to make a distinction between the irregular nature of payments in the REBT and the payments into the MGMRT that have been considered “regular”, suggests that the investigating team responsible for the commissioning itself were misled.
When the investigation was announced in March 2012 the SPL said
“The SPL Board has instructed an investigation into the alleged non-disclosure of payments made by or on behalf of Rangers FC to player s from 1st July 1998.”
It is clear from the Commissioning papers that Duff and Phelps were asked to provide all documentation relating to ebts (no distinction between REBT and MGMRT being made or indeed possible at that point) including any documents from HMRC. The information supplied on 19th February by TSFM contains documents after 1st July 1998 and before 23 Nov 2000 that relate to ebts and side letters/agreements, one of which was supplied but not apparently the other, as well as
- The genesis of the DOS scheme through the REBT for which Rangers accepted liability in March 2011,
- Why that scheme involved an irregular means of payment; and
- The reason why Rangers accepted that liability (i.e. exposure of deliberate concealment of the two side letters from HMRC when the latter specifically asked if they existed and of course from the SFA.)
It will be obvious that Oldco’s involvements with EBTs has contained various episodes of non-disclosure of relevant facts to relevant authorities.
In the absence of any input to the contrary, the side letters and ebts were being treated as part of contracts for service which were not fully disclosed to the SPL/SFA. This meant that for registration purposes the ebts could be treated as the same or continuous. However the side letters/agreements are not the issue nor indeed the registration (or misregistration). The issue being raised is that two of the contracts for service, whilst involving misregistration, had an additional factor and that additional factor is that they were irregular in that they were not lawful.
The failure to provide the missing documents or any advice from those involved in the REBT/ DOS arrangement, caused the commissioning to focus on misregistration because the documents that would have altered that focus were not supplied by Duff and Phelps, whether by accident or design, when requested.
The significance and consequence of this can be found in The Decision when Lord Nimmo Smith himself said
4) The relevant SPL Rules were designed to promote sporting integrity, by mitigating the risk of irregular payments to players;
It follows therefore that if sporting integrity had been circumvented by an irregular means, then sporting advantage would accrue.
And then went on to conclude
(5) Although the payments in this case were not themselves irregular and were not in breach of SPL or SFA Rules, the scale and extent of the proven contraventions of the disclosure rules require a substantial penalty to be imposed;
The documentation supplied clearly shows that two players were paid by an irregular method for which Rangers accepted responsibility in March 2011, a full year before the investigation into side letters and player registration began.
The rules that were broken in respect of irregular payments, the penalty for doing so and what to do about the failure of Duff and Phelps that misled the investigators needs to be reconsidered. It may be prudent to wait for the results of HMRC’s appeal to the UTT concerning the regularity or otherwise of payments made under the MGMRT before embarking on any premature decision regarding the “lawful/regular” nature of the REBT payments. You may wish to refer Duff and Phelps apparent failing to BDO the liquidators of RFC.
You will note that the Commission determined at paragraph [111] (1) that there had been breaches by Oldco with respect to all of Issues 1, 2 and 4 and in respect of most of 3. The excerpted parts of 3 are stated in the paragraph. The finding of breach extends to the Registrations with the SPL, as it then was, of all of the Specified Players; i.e. all of those for whom we had copy side letters and for those for whom we did not but in relation to whom it was known that side letters had been given by Oldco and that whether in respect of the first and/or second trusts.
The breaches in Issues 1 to 3 relate to non-disclosure of side letters/agreements and misregistration which were the focus of the commission because of the limited material provided.
However issue 4 for which an admonishment was given refers to
“Failure to respond timeously to legitimate requests for the provision of information is a serious breach of the rules.”
However what has been demonstrated in the evidence supplied with the letter of 19th February is not a failure to respond timeously but a failure to respond FULLY and that failure or inaction, for whatever reason, has produced a judgement which appears seriously flawed and undermines the legitimacy The Decision by the Lord Nimmo Smith Commission might lay claim to.
TSFM 28 March 2014
Campbellsmoney,
After reading your synopsis on how a club exist outwith the company, can you explain then, who owns and pays players and how the players can be registered if its not the club ?
My contention is that once incorporated, the club no longer exists as an independent entity especially in the professional game. As the club must own and pay and register it’s playing staff, the rules are clear that the club is responsible for these duties, in rangers case it was the mismanagement of these duties that caused their downfall.
As you can see, I am and have never been convinced by the argument that the club is an intangible entity especially when only the club can register or pay players but I am open to correction.
Allyjambo says:
April 3, 2014 at 8:57 pm
JimBhoy says:
April 3, 2014 at 8:09 pm
Re: Griffiths
It’s quite simple – if Griffiths want to be captured on video as a fan having a go at a rival team then that’s up to him. I have never heard the song being sung but I do worry more than a bit about the description it is only ‘slightly racist’. There is no such thing because that’s how racists slip their message under the wire and try so disseminate it. But that’s another issue.
If Griffitrhs wishes to remain a player at Scotland’s No 1 club he has a clear choice to make – either get his act together or prepare for a life of pub football on a Saturday. Up to him – but Celtic are quite right to mark his card.
He’s scored a few goals and looks to be flexing his muscles – fine but he either accepts the responsibilities required of a Celtic player or, if not, it’s GTF. It really is that simple.
Ithink the amount of the fine will be buttons to him but I think the chat he has been given on the facts of life at Parkhead will have made the club position very very clear to him. No one is bigger than the club and for those who don’t accept that – well they can hit the road and the sooner the better ❗
Allyjambo says:
April 3, 2014 at 8:57 pm
JimBhoy says:
April 3, 2014 at 8:09 pm
The thing is that it is about a bit of respect.
While I was in the employed by a company, I would expect them to drag me over the coals for being wholly disrepectful of another company within my industry , even if it was true they were going ‘bust’, the reality is that it is a matter of being canny about what you say, when you say it and with whom.
As BFDJ said on SSB the other week there is the law and then there is football law. Similarly there is normal behaviour and that which is expected of professional footballers.
I’m not great fan of Griffiths but I do remember seeing Marco Negri in an Edinburgh bar/restaurant at the height of his goalscoring power in Scotland. Good food, good drink (not that he was partaking) attractive women by his side etc etc
What an unhappy bunny he looked.
I’m a big big fan of getting Scottish players to take a more professional attitude and approach to their game but if Negri was the result then I have to admit I would be happy to allow the odd ‘Griffiths’ moments to go by unpenalised.
ecobhoy says: April 3, 2014 at 10:07 pm
Re: Griffiths
It’s quite simple – if Griffiths want to be captured on video as a fan having a go at a rival team then that’s up to him. I have never heard the song being sung but I do worry more than a bit about the description it is only ‘slightly racist’. There is no such thing because that’s how racists slip their message under the wire and try so disseminate it. But that’s another issue.
==============================
The “mildly racist” song sung by Hibs fans makes reference to Rudi Skacel as a “f***ing refugee”. You can judge for yourself whether or not that is banter, bad taste, implicitly racist or explicitly racist.
However, it reminded me of a Hearts fan who was fined after an incident at Celtic Park in 2005 (and subsequently banned from Tynecastle, by Hearts, having been convicted of an offence at an away ground).
http://www.scotsman.com/news/scotland/top-stories/fan-fined-for-racism-after-shout-at-celtic-s-welsh-star-1-1094839
His offence? He called Craig Bellamy a “little Welsh b*****d”. The problem was apparently the use of “Welsh”, hence he was convicted of a racially-aggravated breach of the peace.
It’s odd, but the policeman who arrested him was asked what he would have done if the defendant had called John Hartson a “fat b******d” or Neil Lennon a “ginger b******d”. He said that he would not have arrested him because that wasn’t an offence.
Football crowds seem to have their own set of offences, some more bizarre than others.
Never seen this other ‘fast track’ Lunny peculiarity highlighted on here: apologies if it has been.
Seems the Compliance Officer issued Notices of Complaint to Tommy Wright and Jackie Macnamara following a match on 12th March. Over four weeks later, on 10th April, the Principal hearing will take place.
Why the delay? Haven’t both managers got important cup semi finals just days later?
Having lurked around these parts for a good long while, I’ve often considered entering the fray, to put my 2p worth in about the utter mess that is Scottish Football Administration. Mine is a perspective that has been honed by seeing my own team chase the dream of playing with the big boys and paying the ultimate price. The irony that it was SDM who started the ball rolling on our 1 way trip to liquidation (the old fashioned kind that you don’t come back from!) isn’t lost on me.
The reason that I’ve finally bit the bullet and registered for this site is to answer a comment that was posted about why my (new) team is being called Airdrieonians again.
The simple reason is that, after the Sevco=Rangers ruling, the SFA couldn’t deny us the chance to revert the branding. The final winding down of the old Club’s affairs by KPMG meant that the traditional name could be obtained – it’s not clear whether there was an actual transaction, but the statements made by the chairman suggested that there was an associated cost.
I’ll finish off my maiden post by saying that, as a fan of a club who were, in my opinion, treated rather shabbily by the football authorities when trying to reestablish themselves (thus having to go down the road of cannibalising a fellow Club to keep professional football in Airdrie) I have been disgusted by the way that the rules have been contorted for the benefit of one club and its fanbase. The squeaky wheel really does get the grease.
Surely only one of them has an important (as defined by the conflicted one’s organisation), the other will be playing Aiberdeen?
CAMPBELLSMONEY says:
April 3, 2014 at 4:38 pm
neepheid says:
April 3, 2014 at 4:21 pm
Please read this
FCA Financial Conduct Authority
One minute guide Changing your legal status
Published: 29/05/2013
This guide outlines the process required to change your firm’s legal status.
How do I change my firm’s legal status?
If your firm is authorised by the FCA and you are thinking of changing its legal status – for example from a partnership to a limited company – you must apply to us for authorisation for the new legal entity.
You can do this through our change of legal status application pack.
We will automatically cancel your firms previous legal entity when the authorisation for the new firm begins.
How much will it cost?
We will charge you an application fee when you apply. This is half the standard application fee. So a ‘straightforward’ application is £1500 and a ‘moderately complex’ application is £5,000. Most financial advisers, mortgage brokers and general insurance intermediaries will be straightforward applications.
How long will it take?
Most applications are processed well within the statutory standards.
Firm reference number
You will get a new FCA firm reference number. You will need to inform the product providers you deal with so they can update their records.
What happens with partnerships when members change?
If a person resigns from a partnership, providing that there is more than one remaining partner, the firm can carry on with the firms existing authorisation, but the partnership will need to notify us of the change in membership. The same applies if a new partner joins, as long as the business activities are the same as before.
If an entity is left with only one remaining partner, it cannot continue to operate as a partnership and will need to apply to change its legal status, to become a limited company or a sole trader.
Customers
If you have any ongoing contractual agreements with your customers, you must contact them and agree either to amend their existing contracts or to agree new contracts to take into account the change in your firms legal entity.
Otherwise you should let your customers know about the change in the legal entity as and when you next deal with them.
When you apply to change your legal status we will require your firm to agree to deal with any complaints from existing customers in the same way that it would customers of your new legal entity. We have this requirement to prevent firms leaving behind their obligations to their customers by changing their legal entity.
Related information
See our Change of legal status criteria factsheet for more information.
Finding FSA documents
You will find some FSA branded documents on the FCA site.
—————————————–
Notice “changing your legal status” that is all it is. At least it was when I was Compliance Officer.
woodstein says:
April 4, 2014 at 1:53 am
2 0 i
Rate This
CAMPBELLSMONEY says:
April 3, 2014 at 4:38 pm
neepheid says:
April 3, 2014 at 4:21 pm
Please read this
FCA Financial Conduct Authority
———————————————————————————————————————
Thanks. I really have no more to say on the subject. I have said my bit. The FCA are being lax with their words. Nothing changes a legal status. A club cannot become incorporated. The people who run a club can decide to take advantage of limited liability and set up a company. When you say “changing your legal status” – the “you” in “your” can only be referring to teh people behind teh club – not the club. One minute guides are not legal advice.
canamalar says:
April 3, 2014 at 9:11 pm
6 0 i
Rate This
Campbellsmoney,
After reading your synopsis on how a club exist outwith the company, can you explain then, who owns and pays players and how the players can be registered if its not the club ?
My contention is that once incorporated, the club no longer exists as an independent entity especially in the professional game. As the club must own and pay and register it’s playing staff, the rules are clear that the club is responsible for these duties, in rangers case it was the mismanagement of these duties that caused their downfall.
As you can see, I am and have never been convinced by the argument that the club is an intangible entity especially when only the club can register or pay players but I am open to correction.
————————————————————————————————————————–
I was not talking about Rangers or any “football club” (a term that has a meaning only under football rules). I was talking about clubs as that term is used in the law of Scotland.
A club can employ people – for example the barman at the bowling club. Football rules about registering players are nothing to do with what I posted.
Football players are employed by the limited company (in the case of Rangers, they are employed by TRFC Limited) – they are not employed by the concept of a “football club” that the football rules have invented.
If the football authorities wish to use the term “club” for their own limited football purposes, in a way that is different from what that word means under the law of Scotland, they are free to do so – I just wish they hadn’t done so. I believe that it is the confusion between what “club” means in law and what “club” means in the SFA/SPFL rules (and predecessors) that has caused so much nonsense.
Last night I watched a couple of videos on Youtube from the Scotland Tonight programme at the time of the Rangers Administration then liquidation. The 2nd video was from the night before the then SPL clubs voted on whether or not to allow the new Rangers into Divsion 1. By the time of the programme it became abundantly clear the vote was going against what was ultimately being pushed by the SFA and SPFL Chief Execs. There were two particularly nauseating moments for me. The first was when Gordon Smith spoke incredulously of small clubs being allowed to vote on the future of the most successful club in the world. The second was when Archie McPherson wagged his finger and told Celtic fans their club could not live without Rangers. He then went on to profess that while Rangers would survive wherever they are, many of those voting against them will not. Neil Patey gave some smiling warnings of the financial disaster that was looming. Archie, unlike Gordon Smith, at least showed some understanding of the bitterness other fans and clubs felt. What all the people in the studio agreed though was that Regan and Doncaster’s postions were probably untenable.
So a few things to think about. Celtic CAN live without Rangers. ALL clubs who voted against Rangers have survived, but WHY are Regan and Doncaster still in position?
PS the best laugh was Gordon Smith pointing out that Craig Whyte’s regime had caused all the damage but were gone. There is now a new regime in place trying to take the club forward in the right way. Inredible!
For those concerned about Griffiths receiving a fine from his Club for singing a song about Hearts, this was not the case. The Club (along with many others) have rules regarding what you can and cannot do in your spare time, these rules are there due to, but not limited to a mixture of SFA/SPFL guidelines, the law, Insurance and club reputation.
For instance, he cannot have a kick about in the park with the local boys on a Sunday morning, he should not drink excessive amounts of alcohol at specific times and he must report to training or other club events at the time and location stated.
For sure, Griffiths was fined, but not for singing a Hibs song as a Hibs fan.
A lot of talk on SSN this morning about Sunderland playing a unregistered player for 5 games before realising through a random drug test they had no international clearance to play him.
The Paper reviewer pointed out that it was incredible that this has only came to light months later and that there seems to be no transparency 😳
Campbellsmoney,
No other entity but the club can pay or register players thems the rules, therefore the club becomes a legal entity in the eyes of the civil law and football law when it pays and registers a player. EUFA laws are very clear on this issue, there is no distinction and there is not allowed to be a distinction.
I am using rangers as they are the only club in the world to try and use your argument.
Woodstein At 1:53am
Compliance Officer? You’re not Vincent Lunney are you?
🙂
Campbellsmoney,
How does club membership and affiliation fit into this picture ?
Unless a registered charity, a club must pay tax on its membership fee’s.
Affiliations require a club to meet certain criteria, in most cases this criteria has legal implications either civil or in accordance with Association rules and usually both.
Oh and I was talking about rangers not this new abomination you associate with rangers, rangers are no more, and this is the nexus of the argument, no ?
Campbellsmoney says:
April 4, 2014 at 7:18 am
… I believe that it is the confusion between what “club” means in law and what “club” means in the SFA/SPFL rules (and predecessors) that has caused so much nonsense.
——
I remember posting a long time ago about how unfortunate it was that, in the specific case under discussion, the name of the company included the word “Club”.
The use of this word in a company name is actually pretty meaningless and only adds further to the confusion in this instance.
canamalar says:
April 4, 2014 at 8:22 am
3 1 i
Rate This
Campbellsmoney,
No other entity but the club can pay or register players thems the rules, and football law when it pays and registers a player. EUFA laws are very clear on this issue, there is no distinction and there is not allowed to be a distinction.
I am using rangers as they are the only club in the world to try and use your argument.
—————————————————————————————————————————————-
I am sorry – if you think I am an apologist for anything called Rangers or that anything I have said is an argument in favour of Rangers- then I think you are mistaken. As is your assertion that “therefore the club becomes a legal entity in the eyes of the civil law “.
upthehoops says:
April 4, 2014 at 7:21 am
17 0 Rate This
———–
Could we say: wrong then, wrong now, wrong forever? 😆
Instead of siding with all their other member clubs, and both football and legal justice, the SFA and the league bodies helped stoke the fires of, ‘Everyone hates us.’ The fans of RFC took it all very personally and passionately, which is understandable. Blame for this extended mess lies squarely with the high heid yins who acted like the uselessly hopeless parents of a spoiled child.
@Smugas
Semantics aside, the mechanics of the process which involved same shirt, name, status, the then / forever claims, and so on, amounted to debt relief carried out by Billy Whizz! If it walks like phoenix, etc, etc.
Campbellsmoney has explained in quite plain terms the distinction between the legal and football definitions of the word “club”.
I think the debate may turn on the difference between the two.
What changed for football clubs when they incorporated in the latter part of the nineteenth century? If they are different clubs, are the companies entitled to the history of achievement won by the clubs?
The continuity criterion appears to have been the SFA membership. It certainly appears to me that going by Campbellsmoney’s definition, there is no other. Same stadium? Jerseys? Players? Fans?
Of course the difference and inconsistency is when you look at Airdrie, Third Lanark, Gretna and others.
A question to CM if I may. I think I know the answer, but just to be sure;
Does the change from “Ltd” to “plc” involve a change or a whole new entity?
Campbellsmoney,
I had no intention of accusing you of being an apologist and sorry if my clumsy grammar and vocabulary implied such.
My contention is that, the only time this has become an argument is now, when a new club is trying to claim the history of a now extinct club rangers.
And as I said, the argument you are offering is the argument the SFA are offering.
Can we try and define “club” then ?
Does a club need to have members to exist ?
TFSM,
I disagree, campbellsmoney used barmen and the like to explain how a club can employ non member staff, my contention is that no one but the club can affiliate to associations and register/pay its competition staff if indeed the club are a competitive organisation.
canamalar says:
April 4, 2014 at 8:39 am
1 0 Rate This
Campbellsmoney,
How does club membership and affiliation fit into this picture ?
Unless a registered charity, a club must pay tax on its membership fee’s.
Affiliations require a club to meet certain criteria, in most cases this criteria has legal implications either civil or in accordance with Association rules and usually both.
============
Since I spent far too many years dealing with such issues, I’ll make a comment.
Clubs are dealt with for UK tax purposes as “unincorporated associations”, and are subject to VAT and corporation tax, as well as having to operate and account for PAYE on anyone they employ. None of that gives or acknowledges a legal status to a club- here is what the Revenue instructions have to say-
_____________________________
CTM41305 – Particular bodies: unincorporated associations: definition
The definition in CTA10/S1121 (formerly ICTA88/S832 (1)) says that ‘company’ means (subject to some minor qualifications):
‘any body corporate or unincorporated association but does not include a partnership, a local authority or a local authority association’
The term ‘unincorporated association’ is not defined in the Taxes Acts. The provision brings within the scope of CT unincorporated organisations of all kinds that have some recognisable existence.
The characteristics of an unincorporated association have emerged primarily from case law.
An unincorporated association:
is not a legal entity,
is an organisation of persons or bodies (more than one) with an identifiable membership (possibly changing),
has a membership who are bound together for a common purpose by an identifiable constitution or rules (which may be written or oral),
is an organisation where the form of association is not one which is recognised in law as being something else (for example, an incorporated body or a partnership),
must have an existence distinct from those persons who would be regarded as its members,
the tie between the persons need not be a legally enforceable contract.
Whether an organisation is an unincorporated association is a question of fact and will depend upon a consideration of all the relevant circumstances. It cannot be determined by simply looking at what the organisation calls itself or the form of its rules.
There is no reason why an unincorporated body should not have trading or business objects, or carry on significant commercial activities.
_______________________________
Problems always arise with collection, and although I never worked on that side of the Revenue, I understand that collection proceedings would be taken against the club’s members as individuals, since there is no legal entity to take court proceedings against. Very messy, I understand..
re. Griffiths – Celtic have fined him (assuredly buttons) and he has apologised. This, to me, was a pre-emptive strike and will lessen any subsequent action by the SFA.
As Madbhoy24941 says, we don’t know all the clauses in his contract – and even then there will be various catch-all clauses along the lines of “or any action that brings the name of Celtic FC into disrepute”. Possibly apocryphal story: my brother works for PepsiCo and I understand it is deemed misconduct there to walk into the building with a can of Coke ™.
Anyone else feel like they are watching a kettle boil?
Wallace’s 120 day review better be spectacular or has the plan been to bore us all to death.
However still the best soap in town with many twists and turn to come.
Time for the Rovers Return on Sunday?
Airdrieonian says:
April 3, 2014 at 11:00 pm
100 1 Rate This
… The irony that it was SDM who started the ball rolling on our 1 way trip to liquidation (the old fashioned kind that you don’t come back from!) isn’t lost on me.
———–
Great post. I thought I’d read that the old name became uncontentious when the process of liquidation finally ended? Wasn’t that a rather long-drawn-out affair?
Not sure if this contribution will help or hinder the debate this morning.
Does it help to put the word “operating” in front of “club” in the discussion, with most emphasis placed on the former and the word club, as angus says, becoming an unfortunate by-stander. When the formal club incorporated in 18toadstool a new legal entity was formed. It became the operating club in so far as no other association, club or company turned up claiming they were RFC. Thus Manandbhoy’s contention that only the operating club can employ people, hold memberships is correct, as is CM’s that the old club was left behind.
Where the continuity arguement falls down, as has one or two have mentioned on here before 👿 is that the operating club should not be able to distance itself from a financial commitment that it took on, just because the fancy (or should that be fantasy) took them.
IMHO like.
You missed common sense on the part of the player and harsh experience on the part of the club from your list, but otherwise in full agreement.
Moreover, in contrast to all precedent they have been fined instead of having the point they gained docked. The fine has not been disclosed, but I’d be surprised if it exceeded the prize money increment received for finishing a place higher in the table.
Recently, Hartlepool have been docked points for the same offence of fielding an ineligible player, Alfreton in the non-league lost points and Ascot United were expelled from the FA Cup. Each case was a genuine mistake and in the latter case the club reported the matter to the FA themselves. There are countless other examples.
What happens if Sunderland avoid relegation by a point or on goal difference?
From what i read Y4ARMY a lot of blame lies with the Premier League itself as well as Sunderland, so its a huge can of worms if a Fulham or a Cardiff say were to lose their place by a point.
From your examples though it does seem in football these days the bigger you are the easier it is to avoid punishment for misdemeanors
Neipheed,
Thanks that does help me understand campballsmoney’s argument a lot more, so to take your information to its Nth degree, when will HMRC and the rest of the creditors be pursuing the members of the old club for outstanding bills ?
Once again
SPL [Clubs with their owners & operators] broke away from the SFA to form a professional self-governing league. Membership of the SFA was automatically accredited to SPL members to enable their entry to Uefa Tournaments and allow SPL registered players to participate in Internationals. It’s quite simple.
When the SPL expelled them;
The SFA membership automatically defaulted. At that point they were no longer members of the SFA. SFA Membership wasn`t suspended – or put on ice – it stopped, period.
– they were not members of or participating in any league at all.
They couldn`t play arranged friendlies which were cancelled. They had no license, nothing. They were bereft.
In order to sell / buy the `business` sevcos/duffers needed a new membership / license.
They applied for a new SFA membership / licence and that granted conditionally for SFL 3
The noxious 5-way thing was presented as involving a `transfer` of SFA membership. It has yet to be explained to me how a new SFA membership granted conditionally can be `transferred`. It was definitively a new membership granted to a newly formed company [sevco5088 originally] – that had no previous experience in football – or – somebody can explain to me how Zeus, Mystery Shareholders et al etc have a 100 year plus history and pedigree in Scottish Football. I don’t believe sevco5088/ sevco scotland had football history or could claim any history in their own right [formed 2012] – but afterwards flagrantly admitted they had `bought some` – as if one can buy creditable history – or claim continuity
There was no continuity of SFA membership – none.
A `Club` does differ from the `Company – but – both are mortally interdependent.
One fails and both go under – Collectively they cease to be
Either can be later brought back to operation – but the continuity is lost.
The SFA `Transfer` stuff is PR mince – definitively not true as impossible.
In my view 😉
I have been interested in the ongoing discussions over unincorporated associations and, in particular, what happens to any surplus assets when such an association is dissolved.
The following points seem relevant to me:
And I couldn’t resist this one which I will need to research further to see if any parallels exist with TRFCL 🙄
As to titles won by Rangers as an unincorporated body it doesn’t appear to me that they could be passed to a new incorporated company in 18canteen as they would most definitely be assets (possibly their playing field and funds raised also come into this category) and should be distributed to the members either in equal shares or in a manner prescribed by the rules of the association on dissolution.
Even if no formal step was taken to dissolve the association then it would automatically die with the last member so there is a finite length of time to its survival and existance and it cannot just survive as an ethereal body with or without a legal personality.
I’m not an expert on Rangers History but is there any copy of the original association rules to see what, if anything, they state on the question of surplus asset division on dissolution of the original unincorporated Rangers.
canamalar says:
April 4, 2014 at 9:48 am
Thanks that does help me understand campballsmoney’s argument a lot more, so to take your information to its Nth degree, when will HMRC and the rest of the creditors be pursuing the members of the old club for outstanding bills ?
——————————————————————————————————————————————————————
No no no no .
Can you name any member of the “old club”? There are no such people.
Regarding history of Club/Company. Is it not a really simple principle, i.e. The history stays with the debts.
No amount of word twisting can overcome this basic fairness, which would cover the behaviour of all companies and football clubs.
Airdrie can use the name Airdrieonians, since the liquidation process is complete but they still don’t have the history of Airdrieonians, Clydebank or Kilbowie Juniors because of the debts.
ecobhoy says:
April 4, 2014 at 10:38 am
I’m not an expert on Rangers History but is there any copy of the original association rules to see what, if anything, they state on the question of surplus asset division on dissolution of the original unincorporated Rangers.
============
What usually happens is that the club members receive shares in the new company, in exchange for their individual interest in the assets of the club. I don’t know whether that applied in the case of Rangers, but I have a book upstairs which covers in fair detail the transfer of Celtic to a limited company in the 1890’s. I will look it out and post anything of interest later, but from memory, it was an extremely contentious matter, with many of the members feeling that limited company status would undermine the charitable ethos of the club.
Zenit may soon need the services of Sandy Bryson 🙂
http://www.eveningtimes.co.uk/mobile/rangers/rangers-conquerors-zenit-face-uefa-cup-bribe-claims-158368n.23873256
canamalar says:
April 4, 2014 at 9:48 am
6 1 Rate This
Neipheed,
Thanks that does help me understand campballsmoney’s argument a lot more, so to take your information to its Nth degree, when will HMRC and the rest of the creditors be pursuing the members of the old club for outstanding bills ?
=============
The members club that was the original Rangers was replaced by a limited comany well over a 100 years ago. The limited company was liable for all taxes from then on, and was ultimately put into liquidation for non payment of those taxes.
A question to CM if I may. I think I know the answer, but just to be sure;
Does the change from “Ltd” to “plc” involve a change or a whole new entity?
——————————————————————————————————————————————–
Same entity. All that plc really means is that shares can be offered to the public. As always with companies the crucial thing is the company number. A company can change from ltd to plc and then change its name and then change back to ltd but its company number will not change – so it is the same entity.
A
@Allyjambo, Wottpi, Eco, Regards Griffiths… I understand and agree with most of what you write on the man, he is in the public eye constantly, much more now he plays for Celtic. I think Celtic’s action if any should not hit the public domain. But I agree someone should have had a word with Griffiths so as to avoid any more serious offence. If Lunny does not find Griffiths guilty should Celtic detract any penalty ?
Seems daft that a player shows he is a fan to another club and through his action his employers can lose his services thru a ban.. IMO football bans should be for footballing offences.
Danish Pastry says:
April 4, 2014 at 10:52 am
http://www.eveningtimes.co.uk/mobile/rangers/rangers-conquerors-zenit-face-uefa-cup-bribe-claims-158368n.23873256
————————————————————————————————
Belter of a thread on RM on how they were “cheated”
If only Carlsberg (or should I say St Petersburg) did irony 😆
Neepheid,
So we’er back to square one then, the club became a company and the distinction disappeared ?
A club without members cant be a club can it ?
Campbellsmoney,
Which is why I asked if we should be trying to define “club”, surely to be a club it must have a membership ?
Extending that in the rules of association, only members can play for a club hence the registration requirements, no ?
StMiley @StMiley 11m
Sevco Scotland ltd AKA Rangers have just published their accounts – not yet available though!
StMiley @StMiley 11m
Be here soon – http://wck2.companieshouse.gov.uk//compdetails
Anyone else heard this?
APOLOGIES – the player received the bonus and used that to collectively pay a referee.
Am I missing something, and far be it from me to criticise the quality of sports journalism in Scotland 🙄 but the article says Referees were being bribed by the club and is backed up by the indisputable FACT that Erik Hagan (a player) received money that bizarrely becomes a bribe in the article despite it coming, we assume, from his employer?
Campbellsmoney says:
April 4, 2014 at 11:03 am
4
0
Rate This
A question to CM if I may. I think I know the answer, but just to be sure;
Does the change from “Ltd” to “plc” involve a change or a whole new entity?
——————————————————————————————————————————————–
Same entity. All that plc really means is that shares can be offered to the public. As always with companies the crucial thing is the company number. A company can change from ltd to plc and then change its name and then change back to ltd but its company number will not change – so it is the same entity.
==============
Damn Companies House. Why can a company not still keep the same number? Makes the same club argument so much simpler. 😛
Having a bit of a laugh at the comments on RM re the admission by the Zenit player that refs were bribed en route to the final in Manchester in 2008.
One or two are even demanding they be awarded the trophy if cheating is proven.
(I know……… irony not their gig)
What will they do when UEFA say that they can’t award anyone the trophy as the runners up no longer exist?
Riot in cyberspace perhaps?
Mungo
If you’re dipping your toe anyway, go and point out that if the players did it off their own bat then the club is obviously in the clear and that no sporting advantage was attained. 😆
Smugas says:
April 4, 2014 at 1:31 pm
0 0 i
Mungo
If you’re dipping your toe anyway, go and point out that if the players did it off their own bat then the club is obviously in the clear and that no sporting advantage was attained.
———————————————-
And don’t forget – because the “bribery” was not detected at the time the match took place the refereeing and result remains valid.
canamalar says:
April 4, 2014 at 12:08 pm
0 1 Rate This
Neepheid,
So we’er back to square one then, the club became a company and the distinction disappeared ?
A club without members cant be a club can it ?
========
Well that’s how I view it. Once a company takes over, the club (in the technical or legal sense) ceases to exist.
But as I have said many times, we are back to semantics. The word “club” is used to mean different things in many different contexts. A supporter talks of the “club” he supports, whether it is structured as a members’ club, a partnership, a limited company, or a PLC. The fact is, most people just don’t care, because in most contexts, it is of no importance to them whatsoever.
Smugas says:
April 4, 2014 at 12:18 pm
2 0 Rate This
APOLOGIES – the player received the bonus and used that to collectively pay a referee.
Am I missing something, and far be it from me to criticise the quality of sports journalism in Scotland but the article says Referees were being bribed by the club and is backed up by the indisputable FACT that Erik Hagan (a player) received money that bizarrely becomes a bribe in the article despite it coming, we assume, from his employer?
———–
To VG he explained that in the dressing room there was no opt out. The win bonus for that match was $12,000 per player, so they reckoned that each of them paying $3,000 to the ref worth it for a guaranteed $9,000.
It’s not sport, is it? It’s just racketeering.
Danish Pastry says:
April 4, 2014 at 10:52 am
http://www.eveningtimes.co.uk/mobile/rangers/rangers-conquerors-zenit-face-uefa-cup-bribe-claims-158368n.23873256
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..
Wouldn’t it be justice if they awarded the trophy to the dead club and thereafter a complaint came in from both semi-finalists, (having been brought up to speed by TSFM), causing the dead club to also be stripped of the trophy.
Don’t you just know already what Chicko’s sportsound exclusive is going to be!
Angus, time to dust off your post, the one about only the one club having two european trophies 😈
2p worth on the club/company debate.
When the 19th century incorporation took place, what if it was against the law to describe a company as a club or use the name club in a company name. Hence say Rangers Football Company Ltd. This would become Rangers Football Company PLC. and would have died like any other company post liquidation. Just removing the word club, removes a lot of the confusion, (the friendly fog of the SFA) and simplifies the on-going status of the new company and team with 21 months history and no league/cup titles.
Would that be simple enough for the Govan Hezb”ally” to grasp?
DANISH PASTRY says:
April 4, 2014 at 10:52 am
Zenit may soon need the services of Sandy Bryson 😉
Priceless DP!
Yep – After a Bryson / NS ToR stitch-up – Zenit can keep their title – but given a 250,000 RFA fine for being naughty [no need to pay that]
Uefa `Could` `May` `Can` – but `Won`t`
& the Refs? – no need to repay the `loan`!
Blimey 😉
Neepheid,
Aye but supporters also believe they are members of the club and in campbellsmoney’s analogy of the bowling club, that is likely to be true.
A “Club” must have members to be recognised as such, without a membership it is simply a company that applies to all affiliated clubs so I suppose they could all say more than just a club, eh.
canamalar says:
April 4, 2014 at 2:01 pm
0 0 Rate This
Neepheid,
Aye but supporters also believe they are members of the club and in campbellsmoney’s analogy of the bowling club, that is likely to be true.
A “Club” must have members to be recognised as such, without a membership it is simply a company that applies to all affiliated clubs so I suppose they could all say more than just a club, eh.
==========================
They aren’t members of the club, because there is nothing for them to be members of. You only become a member of a club by paying a subscription, after being invited in, usually. Without members a club can’t exist. Without a club, there are no members. Once a company takes over from a club, there is no club (in the technical sense) and no members in any sense. There are only shareholders. If anybody actually has a club membership of Celtic, or Rangers, or Aberdeen, just photograph the card and post a link on here. It must be a very old document.
Neepheid,
Thank you, exactly what I’ve been driving at all morning, there is no club and the company is extinct, so any remnants of the club woven into the company are also extinct, although I expect some will still refuse to accept what is blatantly obvious.
I fail to see how a Russian team being accused of bribery becomes easy meat for posters here taking a pop at Rangers. But then on consideration I guess it demonstrates the anger and bitterness towards Rangers that many here feel.
Ryan..,
I expect it ha something to do with the wee tax cast were rangers illegally fielded players and never got charged
RyanGosling says:
April 4, 2014 at 2:36 pm
3 14 i
Rate This
I fail to see how a Russian team being accused of bribery becomes easy meat for posters here taking a pop at Rangers. But then on consideration I guess it demonstrates the anger and bitterness towards Rangers that many here feel.
———————————
That’s because
1. They are easy meat – That’s what happens when the game’s governing body acts with a craven bias and conflict of interest
2. No-one actually mentioned Rangers as far as I can see which perhaps demonstrates a defensiveness and tacit sense of guilt that many Rangers fans feel but don’t acknowledge
They are entitled to the history of Clydebank. The current Airdrieonians are the same company as the original Clydebank.
AIRDRIEONIANS FC LTD SC042250 Est 02 June 1965
nowoldandgrumpy says: April 4, 2014 at 12:16 pm
StMiley @StMiley 11m
Sevco Scotland ltd AKA Rangers have just published their accounts – not yet available though!
StMiley @StMiley 11m
Be here soon – http://wck2.companieshouse.gov.uk//compdetails
Anyone else heard this?
=====================================
Confirmed.
Accounting Reference Date: 30/06
Last Accounts Made Up To: 30/06/2013 (FULL)
Next Accounts Due: 31/03/2015
Last Return Made Up To: 29/05/2013
Next Return Due: 26/06/2014
Highlighted documents are not yet available for inspection
————————————————-
Note that TRFC accounts just lodged only take us up to the end of June 2013 and will largely reflect the full year RIFC accounts that were published in October 2013.
I see that Philip Tudor Nash was appointed to the board of Rangers Retail Limited on 01/04/2014.
And the Murray group have just published theirs
RyanGosling says:
April 4, 2014 at 2:36 pm
I fail to see how a Russian team being accused of bribery becomes easy meat for posters here taking a pop at Rangers. But then on consideration I guess it demonstrates the anger and bitterness towards Rangers that many here feel.
============================================================================================
That may be so but I’ll happily endulge in some whataboutery and say that while two wrongs don’t make a right the anger and bitterness on here is only a smidgeon compared to that shown by the Billy Boycott mob when people called them out for being a bunch of no good tax and debt dodgers.
Anyway, with no anger or bitterness, what’s your predictions for the Ramsdens?
For me its either going to be a squoosh for T’Rangers or it will be a dour affair coming down to ET and penatly kicks.
.
neepheid says:
April 4, 2014 at 10:55 am
‘….The members club that was the original Rangers was replaced by a limited comany well over a 100 years ago….’
———
Yes, indeed. And its certificate of incorporation is numbered 4276, dated 27/05/1899, signed by the Registrar of Joint-Stock Companies. Not sure whether that certificate number would have been its company number, but what else could it have been?
And neither ‘The Rangers Football Club’, nor ‘Sevco Scotland’, nor ‘RIFC plc’ have that company number.
RyanGosling says:
April 4, 2014 at 2:36 pm
————————————–
I fail to see how a Russian team being accused of bribery becomes easy meat for posters here taking a pop at Rangers.
————————————-
It’s a heady case of schadenfreude, brought on by a whiff of hypocrisy, Ryan.
The idea that anyone associated with Rangers (IL) could cry foul at someone bending the rules of association football is akin to the guy down the Barras flogging cheap whisky for £10 and then complaining when he realises he’s been passed a dud tenner.
Rangers are dead and that should never be forgotten. Time to move on, and leave BDO in peace to dissect the corpse.
John Clark says:
April 4, 2014 at 4:11 pm
neepheid says:
April 4, 2014 at 10:55 am
‘….The members club that was the original Rangers was replaced by a limited comany well over a 100 years ago….’
———
Yes, indeed. And its certificate of incorporation is numbered 4276, dated 27/05/1899, signed by the Registrar of Joint-Stock Companies. Not sure whether that certificate number would have been its company number, but what else could it have been?
And neither ‘The Rangers Football Club’, nor ‘Sevco Scotland’, nor ‘RIFC plc’ have that company number.
===========================
Somewhere in my distant memory I think there was another type of incorporated company which might have preceded Limited Companies. It might have been on a trust or charitable basis but it ve-in to an internetescapes me so I might have to give in to an internet search. Might not be relevant of course.
Raith Rovers
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/competitions/scottish-league-cup/10743317/Raith-Rovers-recall-Bayern-Munich-clash-as-they-face-Rangers-in-Ramsden-Cup-final.html
– Composed interesting piece – by Roddy Forsyth no less – 😉
twopanda says:
April 4, 2014 at 5:10 pm
We want Martha,
We want Martha,
😀
What I want to know is: were Rangers bribed not to cross the halfway line?
Thank you for all the kind words of encouragement following my publication of the letter to Stewart Regan. I fully Intend to see this through for the sake of every supporter of every team in Scottish football. Do not let the fatigue of time wear you down, do your own thing in regards of protests. I have already received offers to speak to people within the media and I will venture there to see if there is anything to be gained in our quest to break down the barrier. Together we can succeed .
Eddiegoldtop says:
April 4, 2014 at 6:09 pm
No Eddiegoldtop, you are the one who deserves the thanks and gratitude of all supporters of Scottish Football.