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
Phil McG asking questions
Here’s another – 22m + ST monies in Dec 12 & now questions about a 3 month bill?
What on earth happened there?
Don`t wait up for the MSM being on the ball – Useless – as is the SFA
Eddiegoldtop says:
April 4, 2014 at 6:09 pm
10 0 Rate This
Together we can succeed .
************************************
Gaun yersel Eddie!! Let us know if there anything we can contribute to your magnificent crusade. As a ‘club’ (couldnae resist) TSFM has, since its inception, been asking the same questions as you but we’re only bams.
Now the questions are coming from someone with a vested interest in our sport, someone who has a commercial decision to make based on the answers that will hopefully be forthcoming.
Speaking of sponsors, the following occurred to me way back. How can an organisation (William Hill spring to mind) with a publicly stated policy on ethics and corporate social responsibility be part of this farrago and not question the activities (and motivations) of the organisation they are supporting financially? Beats me!
Best of luck Eddie. Please keep in touch.
Phil’s inferring Ally had naughty away days in Ayrshire with known Blue Knight pretenders: wavy hair man,cardigan etc. and spilt unknown knowns and has been splatted by his employers.
Also (why’s it always the leccy?), unpaid again.
Cheque books out Pretendygers heroes, it always goes down well when you pay that one.
Caveat Emptor says:
April 4, 2014 at 6:42 pm
… How can an organisation (William Hill spring to mind) with a publicly stated policy on ethics and corporate social responsibility be part of this farrago and not question the activities (and motivations) of the organisation they are supporting financially?
——
Firstly, I may be inclined not to put forward a gambling company as a picture of social responsibility … but, that aside, I should imagine what a sponsor wants is for their name to keep coming up. With the controversy surrounding the Scottish Cup semis and final, I should imagine they’re rather delighted if anything.
(Publicly stated “policies” are another invention related to modern business, and should be treated with the same contempt as business-speak. Usually they’re only there so that a company can put them towards an ISO rating. In practice they mean very little, much like your average Risk Assessment – whoever thought up the majority of Health & Safety at Work deserves a medal for keeping so many people in overpaid nonsense work.)
Caveat Emptor
Funnily enough I put a question on those lines to Ralph Topping current CEO of W Hill who was SPL Chairman with reservations about the leniency of the LNS Decision.
He was on holiday but should be back by now.
I’m giving it time to get an answer having supplied him with full background on this and previous blog.
A bookmaker sponsoring an organisation seen as corrupt and who may have duped the SPL under Topping ‘s time as Chairman, seems at odds 😉 with the type of organisation a betting company would want to be associated with.
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.
————
Ryan, my comment was directed at Sandy Bryson. I thought the mention of UEFA looking at things retrospectively, the integrity of the game being of paramount importance, and looking into matches from previous years were things that Bryson handled in a unique manner. We’re all still scratching oor heids.
ianagain says:
April 4, 2014 at 7:26 pm
Phil’s inferring Ally had naughty away days in Ayrshire with known Blue Knight pretenders: wavy hair man,cardigan etc. and spilt unknown knowns and has been splatted by his employers.
Also (why’s it always the leccy?), unpaid again.
Cheque books out Pretendygers heroes, it always goes down well when you pay that one.
======================================
Is the ‘sleekit one’ leaking info. now – for his own purposes of course ?
[To be clear: I don’t mean Phil… 😉 ]
StevieBC says:
April 4, 2014 at 7:52 pm
I usually don’t comment on my sources, but I can confirm that I do not have-nor have I ever had-any communication with Mr McCoist 😉
Not even a whisper? he likes to whisper remember.
Phil
No pen ? Seriously?
sounds a bit Bill Clinton to me.
the pie grease stains will find you out.
So many possibilities with the latest McCoist shenanigans. Is McCoist trying to engineer a way out? Is he feeding his mates inside financial info? Is he on a promise? Is a man who doesn’t even read his own contract a worthwhile ‘insider’? Will the board welcome the opportunity to get shot of their most negative of assets? For all these answers, and more, be sure to tune into the next episode of…Sevco, the Soap that doesn’t wash! Cue cheesy music 🙂
Oops, forgot to add this question:
Was Ally only trying to find someone prepared to keep the lights on?
When can we expect a ruling from the ftt sorry if it’s been asked already
jockybhoy says:
April 4, 2014 at 9:28 am
13 0 Rate This
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 ™.
April 4, 2014 at 1:40 pm
22 0 Rate This
…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 referee worth it for a guaranteed $9,000.
It’s not sport, is it? It’s just racketeering.
__________________________________
It couldn’t happen in Scotland.
Referees here are honest men making honest mistakes… 🙄
helpmaboab says:
April 4, 2014 at 8:26 am
Woodstein At 1:53am
Compliance Officer? You’re not Vincent Lunney are you?
—————————————-
No I did the job properly 😯
It seems to me that there has been some erroneous conflation between the word “club” and the expression “unincorporated association”.
To be absolutely clear, there is no legal definition of “club” that excludes its use as an incorporated entity.
Although a business operating as an unincorporated association has no legal personality, in the eyes of the Company Act it is a recognisable entity in the eyes of the law. If that business incorporates (becomes a company) it remains an undertaking.
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2006/46/part/38/crossheading/meaning-of-undertaking-and-related-expressions
If, in the case of an unincorporated association, the members dissolve their association, the assets are liquidated and the undertaking ceases to exist.
If a company is wound up, the assets are liquidated and the undertaking ceases to exist.
The definition of “club” depends entirely in the context in which it is used. In football a member club of the SFA can be an unincorporated association of persons – or it can be a company. The articles of the SFA do not prescribe one form over another. The SFA recognise the member club as an undertaking (whether unincorporated or incorporated).
The incorporation of a football club involves a transfer of ownership (brand, goodwill, property, etc) from the members of the unincorporated association to the new company. It is effectively a form of solvent reconstruction that limits members financial liability. Although the form has changed, the undertaking remains the same.
It is important to recognise that an undertaking has a clearly defined meaning within both the SPL, SPFL and SFA Articles which all state that:
“…unless the context otherwise requires, words or expressions contained in the Articles bear the same meaning as in the [Companies] Act.”
Although the LNS interpretation simply ignored the Companies Act definition,.I have posted here previously that the reference in the SPL articles to “the undertaking of a football club” is simply recognition that a Club can be either company or unincorporated association.
It really is that simple.
A lateral thought
Suppose
A Big Spiv living in a faraway country announced he was prepared to underwrite a £50m share issue. in a UK Spiv Company…
And
Suppose the Big Spiv was very fond of porkies but said he had given them up
And
The UK Spiv Co were unsure if the Big Spiv had really given up porkies
Would this justify two eminently sensible actions?
Like
The UK Spiv Co requesting the faraway Big Spiv to deposit £50m in a UK Bank as evidence of his committment ?
And
The Big Spiv using this request from the UK Spiv Co when asking permission from the Gov of this faraway country to export £50m to the UK ?
…….
.Or is this just speculation?
There are few things that annoy me in sport more than people claiming honours when blatantly cheating. What mind set can cavort in front of thousands of fans flaunting a trophy that you have not won fairly. Be it Zenit or any team that does it, it simply betrays the ethos of sport. You cheat the other team or teams and all the fans even your own but it is the desire to corrupt sport that I find intriguing.
What drives an individual to ensure that their club, sorry company, MUST win above all else. Is it a child hood thing, only child syndrome, spoilt child syndrome I don’t know and I don’t understand. I can, in some strange way, understand how gambling syndicates attempt to alter sport as they are in the business of making money honestly or dishonestly and in that environment anything seems to go but when you take over a club you are supposed to rise above that type of behaviour and conduct yourself accordingly. Unfortunately that does not seem to be the case in today’s world.
There is one thing that annoys me more than that spectacle however and that is fans being put in danger by incompetence or wilful negligence. That is what happened 25 years ago at Hillsburgh. Every time I see those scenes my blood runs chill and yet boils with anger at the same time. At that time no football match could take place in the UK without police authorisation and yet when a tragedy occurs they throw their hands up in the air and walk away from all responsibility. No one should leave their house to go to any sporting event and lose their life. The fact that so many did on that terrible day should stand as a monument to what can be covered up in a modern society. From the Police to the Politicians to the TV companies to the FA to the Judiciary what happened that day was a very inconvenient truth that must be buried at all costs. That cost was 96 lives and 25 years. Many will remember where they were when they heard the final horrific total that day. I was in a car driving up Airbles Road in Motherwell, having left Strathclyde Park. As I had entered the park a few hours earlier the scene was beginning to unfold although it was still unclear. I almost had to pull the car over I was shaking so badly. The reason for this was because, like a lot of fans, when you are in a large crowd it is dangerous and exciting at the same time. A lot of us have been in crowds where with hindsight you think ‘what could have happened if’.
Jim D on SSB mentioned the possibility that Hearts could go into liquidation by Monday. But he also said that “may well be put into liquidation” as early as Monday. If are Hearts are liquidated “they disappear … they do not suddenly reappear in the 4th tier.”
Make of that what you will.
Apparently he’d been speaking to “some people” and was reporting on the basis of information from Hearts themselves.
Remember this
I have now discussed this matter with our Head of Governance and can confirm that the membership you enquire about is held in the name of Rangers FC. That membership is held by the corporate entity The Rangers Football Club Limited which was, in 2012, transferred this membership by the then named The Rangers Football Club PLC (In Administration) pursuant to and in accordance with Article 14 of the Scottish FA’s Articles of Association. The Rangers Football Club limited is in turn owned by Rangers International Football Club PLC which is listed on the London Stock Exchange through and AIM Listing.
Kind regards
The Scottish FA
justshatered says:
April 5, 2014 at 12:06 am
=======================
Hillsborough is a sobering thought compared to what we regularly discuss on here. The terrible loss of 96 lives put lots of things in perspective.
What it did show us though is the willingness of the authorities, police, and politicians to conceal the truth when an area of the establishment is in the dock. I’ll leave it at that.
Danish Pastry says:
April 5, 2014 at 8:08 am
0 0 Rate This
Jim D on SSB mentioned the possibility that Hearts “may well be put into liquidation” as early as Monday. He went on to say that if Hearts are liquidated “they disappear … they do not suddenly reappear in the 4th tier.”
Make of that what you will.
Apparently, he’d been speaking to “some people” this week and was reporting on the basis of information from Hearts themselves.
A reply that was in direct contravention of this, specifically 2. b)
Article 45 – 1 If the licence applicant is a football company as defined in Article 12(1b), it must provide a written contract of assignment with a registered member. 2 The contract must stipulate the following, as a minimum: a) The football company must comply with the applicable statutes, regulations, directives and decisions of FIFA, UEFA, the UEFA member association and its affiliated league. b) The football company must not further assign its right to participate in a competition at national or international level. c) The right of this football company to participate in such a competition ceases to apply if the assigning club’s membership of the association ceases. d) If the football company is put into bankruptcy or enters liquidation, this is deemed to be an interruption of membership or contractual relationship within the meaning of Article 12. For the sake of clarity, should the licence have already been granted to the football company, then it cannot be transferred from the football company to the registered member. e) The UEFA member association must be reserved the right to approve the name under which the football company participates in the national competitions. f) The football company must, at the request of the competent national arbitration tribunal or CAS, provide views, information, and documents on matters regarding the football company’s participation in the national and/or international competition. 3 The contract of assignment and any amendment to it must be approved by the UEFA member association and/or its affiliated league.
canamalar says:
April 5, 2014 at 8:13 am
1 0 Rate This
A reply that was in direct contravention of this, specifically …
———–
Got a link to that info canamalar?
Danish..,
Its from the EEFA Licensing and fairplay rules 2012
Note it never refers to “club”
UEFA even
I find it extremely strange that the President of our Football Association has not held a press conference to talk up our game to the fans he represents ,particuarly with the improvement our national side has made up the rankings,Farry would have been holding court on weekly basis to milk the chance to get his face on the TV,but not CO,our useless journos will not even ask for a conference as they know there should be questions they would need to ask but are too scared to,what a mess.
Found here
http://www.uefa.org/MultimediaFiles/Download/Tech/uefaorg/General/01/80/54/10/1805410_DOWNLOAD.pdf
FIFA says:
April 5, 2014 at 8:47 am
4 0 Rate This
I find it extremely strange that the President of our Football Association has not held a press conference to talk up our game to the fans he represents ,particuarly with the improvement our national side has made up the rankings
=========
Ogilvie will not “talk up” the game, because to do so would imply that Scottish Football is doing fine with his beloved team in the third tier. To Ogilvie, that is against the natural order of things, and until the old order is fully restored he will be saying nothing positive about football in Scotland, unless it is some sickening words of praise for Ally and the boys as he hands over the Ramsdens Cup.
We must remember that Ogilvie, Regan, Doncaster and Longmuir assured us that Scottish football could not possibly survive without a “Rangers” in the top flight, strutting their stuff in time honoured fashion. To admit now that Scottish football is doing just fine would make them look like a bunch of complete idiots- oh, hang on a minute…
Neepheid
Exactly,I heard he has arranged a date to make the draw for the Scottish Cup final,eh hang on.
CAMPBELLSMONEY says:
April 4, 2014 at 7:10 am
“The FCA are being lax with their words.”
The FCA do not do “lax” with any words, My “Vincent Lunney” (copyright Helpmaboab) job was to make sure every regulation, document, etc issued by PCA was scrutinised and interpreted correctly and the Company I worked for was aware of their legal obligations so that this (below) did not happen.
“Royal Bank of Scotland has been fined £5.6m by British regulators The FCA.”
“RBS has now set aside a total of £3.1bn for PPI redress”
Source Telegraph.
They must have thought the FCA were being lax with words.
If they said jump I asked how high?
Don’t underestimate the power of the FCA.
————————————————————————————————————–
ECOBHOY says:
April 4, 2014 at 5:01 pm
“Somewhere in my distant memory I think there was another type of incorporated company which might have preceded Limited Companies.”
This may be the type you are looking for.
“A Royal Charter changes a body from a collection of individuals into a single legal entity. Once incorporated by Royal Charter, amendments to the Charter and by-laws require government approval
At one time a royal charter was the only way in which an incorporated body could be formed, but other means (such as the registration process for limited companies) are generally now used instead.”
The company I worked for was granted a Royal Charter in 1720, a copy of the petition to the then King was reproduced in every Insurance textbook as a “definition” for ” Insurance” with the exhortation to commit to memory as “there was not a redundant word in it” (or a lax one) ❗
The BBC was formed by Royal Charter.
woodstein says:
April 5, 2014 at 10:55 am
0 0 i
Rate This
CAMPBELLSMONEY says:
April 4, 2014 at 7:10 am
“The FCA are being lax with their words.”
The FCA do not do “lax” with any words, My “Vincent Lunney” (copyright Helpmaboab) job was to make sure every regulation, document, etc issued by PCA was scrutinised and interpreted correctly and the Company I worked for was aware of their legal obligations so that this (below) did not happen.
“Royal Bank of Scotland has been fined £5.6m by British regulators The FCA.”
“RBS has now set aside a total of £3.1bn for PPI redress”
Source Telegraph.
They must have thought the FCA were being lax with words.
If they said jump I asked how high?
Don’t underestimate the power of the FCA.
————————————————————————————————————–
OK – I won’t – I don’t underestimate the power of the Russian Army either but I won’t look to them for legal advice. What the FCA guide is, is “a one minute guide” to reasonably complex issues and which was aimed at providing a comprehensible introductory explanatory note to laymen. It is not a statement of law.
Danish Pastry says:
April 5, 2014 at 8:12 am
=========================
Surely the option of simply restarting as a newco then being voted back into the leagues can’t possibly be denied to Hearts? Precedent set.
upthehoops says:
April 5, 2014 at 12:44 pm
3 0 i
Rate This
Danish Pastry says:
April 5, 2014 at 8:12 am
=========================
Surely the option of simply restarting as a newco then being voted back into the leagues can’t possibly be denied to Hearts? Precedent set.
—————————————————————————————————————-
Different league rules now.
Campbellsmoney says:
April 5, 2014 at 12:55 pm
Different league rules now.
======================
Rules were broken to accommodate the Rangers newco so they should be broken for Hearts as well in that case.
ANGUS1983 says:
April 4, 2014 at 7:29 pm
“In practice they mean very little, much like your average Risk Assessment – whoever thought up the majority of Health & Safety at Work deserves a medal for keeping so many people in overpaid nonsense work.”
—————————————————————————————————-
For the avoidance of doubt Angus, I do understand people’s frustration with this, one of my friends who was a qualified electrician was asked by his employer a couple of years before he retired from his then teaching job to go for “ladder training” even although in his previous job he had worked on ladders at up to 3 storey level. We had a chuckle about that.
Here’s the but…
My friend knew why this was being done.
If his employer could show from course attendance records that they were taking health and safety seriously, then in the event of an accident or injury, their Insurers would pay out under their Employers Liability Policy.
According to most commentators on “elf and safety, Richard Littlejohn? the blame is usually placed on officious jobsworths. When in reality, it is the requirement to comply with insurance policy terms and conditions “wot” is to blame, if blame is the word.
—————————————————————————————————–
Association of Insurance and Risk Managers in Industry and Commerce
Global Association of Risk Professionals
Institute of Risk Management
Professional Risk Managers’ International Association
Risk and Insurance Management Society
Personally in my opinion these bodies have saved many lives and severe injury for many people over many years and I applaud them and the work they do.
One year after I began a career in insurance, an event took place in 1968.
A fire at an upholstery factory in James Watt Street, Anderston,Glasgow, led to the tragic death of 22 people, no compensation was paid to their families.
One year later after an enquiry, Parliament debated and passed, The Employers’ Liability (Compulsory Insurance) Act 1969, and health and safety was born.
Addendum.
There will be an enquiry into Liberton.
CAMPBELLSMONEY says:
April 4, 2014 at 7:10 am
OK – I won’t—————– It is not a statement of law.
OK – is the comment you made below a statement of Law? Can you link to any statement (of Law) which confirms your comment below, can you post a statement of law which states or confirms this, can you indicate where the information came from for this comment or is this merely an opinon you are expressing? and how did you formulate this opinion?
Just asking
—————————————————————————————————————
CAMPBELLSMONEY says:
April 2, 2014 at 12:11 pm
There really is no such thing as an incorporated club – in real terms that just means that a company that now holds the assets that were previously owned by a club. Sometimes we talk about a sole trader or a partnership “incorporating” (all we mean by that is that a new company is being set up and the relevant business and assets are acquired by the new company). There is no change in legal status of any legal entity. In my example, the partnership remains a partnership (it just doesn’t have a business) and the new company is a company but it now holds the business and assets previously owned by the partnership.
Similarly – a company cannot “unincorporate”.
woodstein says:
April 5, 2014 at 2:41 pm
2 0 i
———————————————————————————————————————————
OK – is the comment you made below a statement of Law? Can you link to any statement (of Law) which confirms your comment below, can you post a statement of law which states or confirms this, can you indicate where the information came from for this comment or is this merely an opinon you are expressing? and how did you formulate this opinion?
Just asking
—————————————————————————————————————————————-
Fair question and I have no problem at all with you asking. No I can’t link it to a “statement of law”. Incidentally, what would satisfy you as a “statement of law”?
Not everything that happens to be the law is stated somewhere – sometimes it is ” the law” because its an application of legal principles, statutes, European regulations and judicially decided caselaw. Its the application of all of the above.
Can you give me one example of a club that “incorporated” in the way you describe? You won’t be able to – because its impossible.
Yes its an “opinion” – I am in my third decade of practising company law in the UK – so its not just something I have tried to work out from some websites I saw. I have personally been involved in doing this very thing for dozens of clients.
Campbellsmoney,
Can you give your opinion on my earlier posts and the fact that UEFA dont refer to clubs but the football company in the example and link.
Canalamar
With reference to the Article 45 rule and going from memory so you can maybe check, “clubs” as a legal entity in their own right and clumpanys to describe the entity covered by Art 45, actually sign different declarations in terms of agreement to comply with UEFA rules.
The significance of this if my memory is true is that in 2011 when Rangers were last put forward for their UEFA licence they had to sign a declaration that was either for a club or a different one for a clumpany.
Hence sight of that declaration would tell everyone how Rangers saw themselves at that time as a club or clumpany.
I think an attempt to get an answer to which declaration was signed has been made but with no success but now you have triggered my memory I’ll have a look back to refresh it.
Of course the SFA have a poor record of understanding UEFA rules and seeing that clubs comply and see UEFA FFP like a version of the Pirates Code – more guidelines than rules.
Woodstein
Can you tone down the indignation just a wee bit?
There’s no need to make this an adversarial or confrontational thing. Please just let us assume that nobody is arguing in bad faith. We are actually quite good at having polite differences of opinion here 🙂
Woodstein,
Are you any relation to Goldstein , late of this parish ?.
canamalar says:
April 5, 2014 at 4:27 pm
0 0 i
Rate This
Campbellsmoney,
Can you give your opinion on my earlier posts and the fact that UEFA dont refer to clubs but the football company in the example and link.
———————————————————————————————————————————————————————–
Sorry – I genuinely don’t have a view – football (SFA/UEFA/FIFA) references to clubs aren’t what I know about – that is not law. Sorry I can’t help.
Canalamar
On Art 45. Me auld brain cells are still jogging along. There are two Articles and two undertakings to be given. Put simply if the undertaking/declaration signed in 2011 was the Art 43 version then Rangers saw themselves as a single entity club. The SFA, if they offered any guidance or did not reject the completion of an Article 43 declaration form saw them as such too. I think SFA were asked to confirm but either no answer was given or it did not answer the question.
The rules are
IV. LEGAL CRITERIA
Article 43 –
Declaration in respect of participation in UEFA club competitions
1 The licence applicant must submit a legally valid declaration confirming the
following:
a) It recognises as legally binding the statutes, regulations, directives and
decisions of FIFA, UEFA, the UEFA member association and, if any, the
national league as well as the jurisdiction of the Court of Arbitration for Sport
(CAS) in Lausanne as provided in the relevant articles of the
UEFA Statutes;
b) At national level it will play in competitions recognised and endorsed by the
UEFA member association (e.g. national championship, national cup);
c) At international level it will participate in competitions recognised by UEFA or
FIFA (to avoid any doubt, this provision does not relate to friendly matches);
d) It will promptly inform the licensor about any significant change, event or
condition of major economic importance;
e) It will abide by and observe the club licensing regulations of the UEFA
member association;
f) It will abide by and observe the UEFA Club Licensing and Financial Fair Play
Regulations
;
g) All submitted documents are complete and correct;
h) It authorises the competent national club licensing administration and
national club licensing bodies, the UEFA administration, the Club Financial
Control Panel and the UEFA Organs for the Administration of Justice to
examine any relevant document and seek information from any relevant
public authority or private body in accordance with national law;
i) It acknowledges that UEFA reserves the right to execute compliance audits
at national level in accordance with Article 71.
2
The declaration must be executed by an authorised signatory of the licence
applicant no more than three months prior to the deadline for its submission to
the licensor.
The following is an Art 43 declaration form from the SFA web site for 2013 . It is not known if there was one for 2011 and 2012 but as the declaration only repeats Article 43 chances are one existed and it was similar
CLUB DECLARATION – UEFA LICENSING
UEFA ARTICLE 43
http://www.scottishfa.co.uk/resources/documents/ClubLicensing/Part4:AnnexUEFA/UEFA%20Part%204%20-%206%20Annex%20UEFA%20Legal%20Sign-off.pdf
Name of Club (“Club”)
For and on behalf of the Club, I hereby certify that:-
a) The Club recognises as legally binding the statutes, regulations, directives and decisions of FIFA, UEFA, the Scottish FA as well as the jurisdiction of the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) in Lausanne as provided in the relevant articles of the UEFA Statutes;
b) The Club will play at national level in competitions recognised and endorsed by the Scottish FA. NB. This provision does not relate to friendly matches;
c) The Club will play at international level in competitions recognised by UEFA or FIFA. NB. This provision does not relate to friendly matches;
d) The Club will promptly inform the Scottish FA about any significant change, event or condition of major economic importance;
e) The Club will abide by and observe the Scottish FA Club Licensing Manual;
f) The Club will abide by and observe the UEFA Club Licensing and Financial Fair Play Regulations;
g) The Club confirms that all submitted documents are complete and correct;
h) The Club authorises the Licensing Administration, the Licensing Committee and the Appellate Tribunal of the Scottish FA, as well as UEFA to examine any relevant document and seek information from any relevant public authority or private body in accordance with UK law;
i) The Club acknowledges that UEFA reserves the right to execute compliance audits at national level in accordance with Article 71 of the UEFA Club Licensing and Financial Fair Play Regulations
On
At
By
(Authorised Signatory of the Club)
Article 45 – Written contract with a football company
1 If the licence applicant is a football company as defined in Article 12(1b),
(Article 12 – Definition of licence applicant
1 A licence applicant may only be a football club, i.e. a legal entity fully responsible
for a football team participating in national and international competitions which
either
a) is a registered member of a UEFA member association and/or its affiliated
league (hereinafter: registered member); or
b) has a contractual relationship with a registered member (hereinafter: football
company).
it must provide a written contract of assignment with a registered member.
2 The contract must stipulate the following, as a minimum:
a) The football company must comply with the applicable statutes, regulations,
directives and decisions of FIFA, UEFA, the UEFA member association and
its affiliated league.
b) The football company must not further assign its right to participate in a
competition at national or international level.
c) The right of this football company to participate in such a competition ceases
to apply if the assigning club’s membership of the association ceases.
d) If the football company is put into bankruptcy or enters liquidation, the right to
apply for a licence to enter an international and/or national competition
reverts to the registered member. For the sake of clarity, should the licence
have already been granted to the football company, then it cannot be
transferred from the football company to the registered member; only the
right to apply for a licence the following season reverts to the registered
member.
e) The UEFA member association must be reserved the right to approve the
name under which the football company participates in the national
competitions.
f) The football company must, at the request of the competent national
arbitration tribunal or CAS, provide views, information, and documents on
matters regarding the football company’s participation in the national and/or
international competition.
3 The contract of assignment and any amendment to it must be approved by the
UEFA member association and/or its affiliated league.
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.
[Campbellsmoney]
I will beg to differ;
a club (including a football club) can incorporate into a company,
an ordinary partnership can incorporate into a company,
a limited liability partnership can incorporate into a company,
an association can incorporate into a company and
a sole trader can incorporate into a company.
Why do I say this? Because I have been involved in every one of those scenarios numerous times over the past 25 years and under the law of Scotland, and indeed the law of England and Wales, that is the position.
The club / partnership / LLP / sole trader business / association ceases to exist. The courts recognise that fact, the registrar of companies recognises it, HM Revenue & Customs recognises it.
[]
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.
Alan Preston on Radio Scotland says it would be a disaster if Hamilton (instead of Dundee) get promoted. He means by this that Hamilton don’t have as many fans as Dundee and as the premiership next season will be missing two of the very best followed teams that are traditionally in the top league – then it would be a “disaster” if Dundee’s fans didn’t appear in the Premiership next season..
What unutterable garbage.
I
f Hamilton get up they will deserve it. If Dundee get up they will deserve it. Dundee have two administrations to their credit. Hamilton have none. Hamilton have a fine record recently of producing young players of great talent. I have nothing against Dundee but I like and admire what Hamilton have done over the last ten years. Maybe a few hundred fewer fans at each home game for other teams if Hamilton are in the league rather than Dundee makes a disaster does it?
What unutterable garbage.
Slimshady
There you go again 🙁
If you can’t comment without insulting people, please do not post.
Auldheid,
My foray into the article was specifically to do with the following response from the SFA about the membership transfer.
Remember this
I have now discussed this matter with our Head of Governance and can confirm that the membership you enquire about is held in the name of Rangers FC. That membership is held by the corporate entity The Rangers Football Club Limited which was, in 2012, transferred this membership by the then named The Rangers Football Club PLC (In Administration) pursuant to and in accordance with Article 14 of the Scottish FA’s Articles of Association. The Rangers Football Club limited is in turn owned by Rangers International Football Club PLC which is listed on the London Stock Exchange through and AIM Listing.
Kind regards
The Scottish FA
Which is why I referenced the 2012 UEFA document, that is why I pointed out the specific clause 2. b) it appears the five way agreement was illegal as the old clumpany were not allowed to assign its rights to the new clumpany, also, under this UEFA article the SFA were duty bound by 3. To seek approval from UEFA to make the transfer, do we know if this was ever done ? , which is why I suspect nothing was ever signed at the 5 way as it would be proof that there was an illegal agreement.
Nae luck Hearts, typical that you get relegated by a shocking decision by an SFA official.
Some people – including Auldheid 🙂 – getting ban notices from TSFM.
Am investigating, but NOBODY has been banned. If you receive one of these, please ignore it.
If anyone has difficulty logging in, please let me know TSFM@tsfm.net
New podcast with BP and David Low will be published tomorrow. 😈
woodstein says:
April 5, 2014 at 1:42 pm
… If his employer could show from course attendance records that they were taking health and safety seriously, then in the event of an accident or injury, their Insurers would pay out under their Employers Liability Policy.
——
Perhaps I could have been a bit clearer. I understand the requirement for such policies. What I meant was that the policies are not taken seriously (if read at all) by the average employee. Attendance at training courses at which one learns how to wire a plug, lift a box, clip oneself onto a safety line in order to climb onto a 6 foot high fuel tank, wear a lifejacket when working near a river, etc, may be a necessity but does not generally change the working practices of said employee.
It does, however, allow the company to not pay compensation when a fellow, due to staff cutbacks, is out working alone when he should be in a pair, isn’t wearing his lifejacket according to the risk assessment … slips, bangs his head and drowns in a ditch.
Sorry, way off topic. 🙂
Slimshady
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.
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.
GoosyGoosy says:
April 5, 2014 at 12:00 am
“The Big Spiv using this request from the UK Spiv Co when asking permission from the Gov of this faraway country to export £50m to the UK ?”
—————————–
I think as you suggest, it is just speculation but so is most of your stuff. I thought your earlier post suggesting King might be an Octopus investor had a bit more traction.
As I understand it, Dave King may have some issues with exporting capital since the South African Revenue Service (SARS) are likely taking an interest in his activities following his newly gained status as the largest defrauder of said revenue service in their history. You seem to be implying that advertising the need for an overseas investment, with which it could be shown King had an ’emotional’ affiliation, might be a pretext for his exporting some capital. What I’m not sure about is whether SARS would take account of King’s emotional attachment when applying their strictures to King’s capital movements. Unless you are suggesting that the £50M will never get to its advertised destination. However, as you say, this is merely speculation and not something that I personally would be qualified to comment upon.
Canalamar 5.26
Art 45 applies to a licence applicant for a UEFA licence. In 2012 neither Oldco nor Newco was a UEFA licence applicant so Art 45 provisions do not apply.
As a club entering the SFL only domestic licensing applied aka National Club Licensing. There would have to be an Art 45 equivalent with similar restrictions on transfer of membership which I doubt exist.
However even if there were, the SFA could still override using Art 14 of their own Handbook or use the discretionary loopholes in National Club Licensing to answer your point.
My tangential point about what UEFA Article applied in 2011 in terms if club or company is not affected by what happened in 2012.
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?
🙂
TSFM says:
April 5, 2014 at 4:34 pm
Woodstein
Can you tone down the indignation just a wee bit?
Not indignant at all apologies if I came across that way.
BARCABHOY says:
April 5, 2014 at 4:39 pm
Are you any relation to Goldstein , late of this parish ?.
No used to be ianjs
woodstein says:
April 5, 2014 at 10:55 am
ECOBHOY says:
April 4, 2014 at 5:01 pm
“Somewhere in my distant memory I think there was another type of incorporated company which might have preceded Limited Companies.”
This may be the type you are looking for.
“A Royal Charter changes a body from a collection of individuals into a single legal entity. Once incorporated by Royal Charter, amendments to the Charter and by-laws require government approval
At one time a royal charter was the only way in which an incorporated body could be formed, but other means (such as the registration process for limited companies) are generally now used instead.”
—————————————————————
Yip that was what I was trying to remember – cheers 💡
Anywayy….I see that the Cellino mannie has won his appeal (by an independent QC) to take over Leeds United club/company and is deemed a “fit and proper person”.
“The independent QC has concluded that Mr Cellino’s recent conviction in the Sardinian court did not involve conduct that would “reasonably be considered to be dishonest” based on information available to him at the current time.”
Not in the same league, in terms of misdemeanours, as [TSFM Filter] but the same eventual outcome I suspect, should it come to that of course.
Campbellsmoney says:
April 5, 2014 at 5:53 pm
“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.”
—————————————–
You are only adding marginally to extensive past postings on the topic. I think you have raised eyebrows by suggesting/elucidating that the act of incorporation involves a break in continuity. You have generously amplified your explanations by indicating the process is akin to a snake shedding its skin and that the discarded layer is effectively lifeless. However there has been some effort made on the blog to establish that a leopard cannot change its spots or at least not without consequences. You will know that the reason that this is important is because for many it is viewed as manifestly unfair that a company can shed its debt and yet claim historical continuity with its predecessor. Whilst this state of affairs is routine in general business spheres, in a sporting context fans and supporters wish there to be a bragging rights sanction that compensates for the lack of such a mechanism in the business environment.
I think this was what Lord Nimmo Smith was trying to get at in his SPL tribunal decision however many suspected ulterior motives.
When Rangers Football Club incorporated in 1899, as you say, a new company was formed and all the assets of the former unincorporated entity were transferred into this new company. You have advised that though a new corporate entity was created, the previous unincorporated entity was not absorbed or spontaneously destructed on the date of incorporation. I understand that. The dead husk of the unincorporated entity was discarded, lifeless and useless.
I think where some people might be discomfited is in the illogical assertion that such a change in status in some way lends legitimacy to LNS interpretation. When LNS described a club as having no legal personality, he was not talking about a redundant husk; he was talking about a living, breathing football club. He seemed to be opening the door on a franchising arrangement where clubs could go bust then pick up the pieces afterward and start all over again but still claim to be the same club.
It is of course a deep suspicion that such a lone furrow has been ploughed to allow the history of one particular club to be channelled along it, irrespective of the commercial breaches that may occur along the way. HirsutePursuit routinely identifies rule changes that point to this facilitation. The recent suggestion that administration might be a bar on promotion failed to find its way into the sporting statute and this might easily be interpreted as another example of laws being formulated not for the many but for the few.
It is easy to be ruffled when someone provides credible opinion that sits uneasily with a previous understanding. We fear we may think ourselves out of existence. This is not the primary concern unless we choose to make it so.
Ernie, I was going to cut and paste the Leeds thing from the BBC website, but you beat me to it. What I can’t get is how these two paragraphs can make sense when viewed together…
“Cellino, who owns Serie A side Cagliari, was initially denied the opportunity to purchase Leeds by the Football League after being found guilty in March of not paying import duty on a yacht in Italy.” and
“The independent QC has concluded that Mr Cellino’s recent conviction in the Sardinian court did not involve conduct that would “reasonably be considered to be dishonest” based on information available to him at the current time.” So he’s found guilty of avoiding tax, but can’t be considered dishonest?!?!
To be fair to the Football League it looks as if they were trying to do (what, from my limited knowledge of the case, is) the right thing, but an independent QC has decided Cellino IS a fit and proper person, despite the guilty verdict. I really don’t get it.
nawlite says:
April 5, 2014 at 6:50 pm
2
0
Rate This
Ernie, I was going to cut and paste the Leeds thing from the BBC website, but you beat me to it. What I can’t get is how these two paragraphs can make sense when viewed together…
“Cellino, who owns Serie A side Cagliari, was initially denied the opportunity to purchase Leeds by the Football League after being found guilty in March of not paying import duty on a yacht in Italy.” and
“The independent QC has concluded that Mr Cellino’s recent conviction in the Sardinian court did not involve conduct that would “reasonably be considered to be dishonest” based on information available to him at the current time.” So he’s found guilty of avoiding tax, but can’t be considered dishonest?!?!
To be fair to the Football League it looks as if they were trying to do (what, from my limited knowledge of the case, is) the right thing, but an independent QC has decided Cellino IS a fit and proper person, despite the guilty verdict. I really don’t get it.
________________________________________________
I would imagine that all that would be required for such a judgement is for Mr Cellino to cite other examples of even more dishonest individuals who were deemed FPP and claim legal precedent.
Where could one possibly start looking for such examples I wonder?
upthehoops says:
April 5, 2014 at 1:17 pm
Rules were broken to accommodate the Rangers newco so they should be broken for Hearts as well in that case.
————————-
I disagree.
“He got away with murder so why shouldn’t my client?”
As my mum used to say (and she was never wrong), “2 wrongs don’t make a right”.
Campbellsmoney says: April 5, 2014 at 5:59 pm
Can someone remind us – when does one season end and another season begin? The specific date in 2014 would be helpful.
==============================
From the SPFL rules
Season means the period of the year commencing on the date of the first League Match in a Season and ending on the date of the last League Match in the same Season or otherwise as determined by the Board and which excludes the Close Season;
Close Season means the period of the year outside the Season;
I don’t know how this is affected by play-off matches (SPFL) or cup finals (SFA)
Re continuity on incorporation. I think everyone would probably be happy to agree there IS continuity if the incorporation is a SOLVENT reconstruction but there would be a break if it was an INSOLVENT reconstruction. ???
easyJambo says:
April 5, 2014 at 7:48 pm
Campbellsmoney says: April 5, 2014 at 5:59 pm
Can someone remind us – when does one season end and another season begin? The specific date in 2014 would be helpful.
==============================
From the SPFL rules
Season means the period of the year commencing on the date of the first League Match in a Season and ending on the date of the last League Match in the same Season or otherwise as determined by the Board and which excludes the Close Season;
Close Season means the period of the year outside the Season;
I don’t know how this is affected by play-off matches (SPFL) or cup finals (SFA)
——————————————————————————————————–
According to the same source, the play-off competitions happen after the end of the season (and hence during the close season). Clearly, it will often be the case that those eligible for such competitions are not known until the season is “completed”.
There is a slight logical hiatus here as the last Premiership fixture is scheduled for May 11 (and hence that date is expected to be the official end of the season). However, the lower division play-off semi-finals are scheduled to be played on May 7 and May 10 and hence technically before the end of the season. To my (non-legal) mind this is a drafting error as the intention is clear.
I’m not sure what would happen were a club (if you’ll forgive the term) in the lower divisions to suffer an insolvency event on, say, May 6, particularly if that club had otherwise qualified for the promotion play-offs. Has the season ended or not?
My interpretation is that if ordinary league fixtures had been completed for that division, then any points deduction would be applied to the club next season, in whatever division they find themselves.
I big thank you from me to all contributors. I have very little free time to write but do snatch an hour after midnight some evenings. I read and digest and thoroughly enjoy the research, dissecting and analysis by a good many of you. One day I hope to contribute. Do keep up the good work because the SFA need to know, I’m sure they do, that they are being monitored and one day individuals in positions of decision making in that organisation will be called to justify their decisions. I believe you are the only people that will make this happen. Slainte Mhath.
TSFM says:
April 5, 2014 at 5:36 pm
“Some people – including Auldheid 🙂 – getting ban notices from TSFM.”
————————————-
I’ve just discovered such a notice in my junk mail. It was from tsfm@tsfm.net.
As you have not initiated these notices TSFM it implies that your security may have been compromised.
http://spfl.co.uk/docs/067_324__therulesofthescottishprofessionalfootballleagueasat7march2014_1396269263.pdf
MIH accounts now available
1 Staggering losses of £144 million
2 Chairmans staement admits activities of MIH coming to an end
How much public money has been lost because of Murray. There needs to be an enquiry into his relationship with HBOS. It has cost the UK taxpayer hundreds of millions.
Game over for MIH, but Murray still holding his knighthood for “services to industry” and still no investigation of him for his role in various deceptions and illegal tax schemes by the SFA.