Good Evening,
Whilst it is understandable that the continuing events at Ibrox remain a hot topic among all Scottish Football Fans — especially given the views of some sections of the press on such events– the never ending rush down the marble staircase is certainly not the only show in town.
The other morning we were treated to the “scoop” that Alistair Johnstone is afraid that Craig Whyte– the once proclaimed Multi Billionaire from Motherwell- may well still be pulling all the strings at Ibrox! This is a fear which is shared by those who walk the corridors of Hampden Park as they, too, are terrified of the prospect of Whyte returning in some shape or form and coming back to haunt them, especially as he has been deemed unfit and proper, banned sine die, and generally ridiculed for his past actions.
However, the Hampden jackets know fine well that their realm only stretches so far and that if by means of the proper application of company law, contract or some other piece of paper Whyte controls the shareholding of the self proclaimed “parent company” to the football club then they are in a fix. In fact, I will wager that they just would not know how to deal with such a situation as after all RIFC PLC neither holds a licence to play football nor is a member of the SFA and so, on the face of it, who owns it has nothing to do with them.
At this juncture, no one in authority knows who Blue Pitch Holdings are and, strangely, no one in authority knows who Margarita Holdings are either! Yet these two “holdings” whoever they may be, may well hold all the power down Govan way…… with the SFA completely powerless to find out who they are let alone get into any dialogue with them. All the SFA can do is talk to the appointed Directors and officers of The Rangers Football Club Ltd.
This, is a most unsatisfactory state of affairs.
Meanwhile, they will have no difficulty in finding out who the new shareholders of Dunfermline Athletic are. Those shareholders will come from the fanbase and will be clearly registered at Companies House, with the result that ultimately those fans/shareholders will appoint Directors who will then attend meetings and speak and opine on their behalf and in essence be the ” Voice of Dunfermline” at Hampden.
Perhaps, similar will follow from Heart of Midlothian?
However, those at Hampden — if they have any sense at all– will be most wary of events happening in the east end of Glasgow come November.
In the middle of the month, Celtic PLC will hold its AGM and amidst the items on the agenda is the fan driven notion that the Club— through its Directors—- should go further in holding the SFA to account and enquire into the granting of club licences, and in particular how it granted Rangers a club licence that allowed entry to the Champions League in 2011 when the small tax case was outstanding.
The Celtic board have deemed this motion as “Unnecessary” and in support of that contention have released documentation showing that they raised this very issue with the SFA on behalf of the shareholders and fans. Further– and here is the rub— The Directors reveal that they were not satisfied with the SFA response and have disclosed that they took the matter further and wrote to UEFA.
Ultimately, UEFA also provided a reply, which backed the SFA approach and which Celtic had little option but to accept in the absence of admissible contradicting evidence..
It is on this basis, that Peter Lawell and Co say the AGM motion is not necessary. Note that saying that the motion is not necessary, is not at all the same thing as saying that what the motion seeks to achieve is not necessary or does not have the support of the board!
There will be those at Hampden who severely hope that the Celtic Board are successful in voting this measure down as obviously they deem their original reply sufficient and would like to end the discussion there.
However, my own view, is that whether the motion is successful or not, there are those within the SFA who will recognise there is trouble staring them in the face here. Real Trouble!
Let’s recap for a moment and draw some threads together.
Celtic’s past Chairman, Dr John Reid, said only a couple of years ago that the SFA was clearly not fit for purpose. He did so in the context of events surrounding Neil Lennon and other matters, but was unshakably robust in his condemnation of an institutionalised uselessness which he saw pervaded the Hampden ranks.
Prior to that, Henry McLeish produced a report which stated that he too had concerns about the Governance of Scottish Football and called for openness and transparency.
In the intervening period, we have seen Mr David Longmuir, former Chief Executive of the Scottish Football League, find himelf without a position following reconstruction– and this partly as a result of club chairmen being apparently kept in the dark about his payment, bonuses and expenes. I understand that there was considerable anger from some at the way in which they had been treated by Mr Longmuir.
Then there is Mr Campbell Ogilvie, El Presidente, who himself benefited from a Rangers EBT and who held sway at Ibrox during a period of time when Rangers– by their own admission— made unlawful and illegal payments to three high profile players in breach of tax laws and SFA/SPL rules. It is these breaches and the consequent Wee Tax Bill which has caused all the angst among Celtic fans and has lead to the highly regulated legal step of tabling a motion at the club’s AGM.
Basically, the position seems to be, that as at the due date when the appropriate documents and declarations were made for a Euro Licence by Rangers for 2011, the wee tax bill was outstanding and due. If it was overdue, then the SFA could not and should not have granted them a licence……. and potentially Celtic should then have been put forward as Scotland’s representatives in the Champion’s League.
However, that did not happen, and Ranger’s were granted a licence– something that the Celtic Directors clearly felt was not correct.
They may have disagreed with the awarding of the licence because there were those at Rangers at the time who declared that a payment to account had been made to the tax office– allegedly £500,000– and that they had entered into an agreement to make payment of the balance by instalments. Had that been so, then all would have been hunky dory and no more would have been said.
Alas, however, no such payment appears to have been made at all, and no such agreement was entered into and so, on that basis, the tax bill was overdue and outstanding as at 30th June in terms of Article 66 and as such no Euro Licence should have been granted.
However, the argument does not end there.
Auldheid, has posted frequently on these pages about the ins and outs of the licensing provisions and the mechanism and so I will leave that detail to him as he is far more expert in these areas than me.
Now, one of the SFA functions is to have an auditor– someone who can check books, contracts, paper work and so on, and it is part of the SFA licensing function to be satisfied that all the paperwork is of course correct and in proper fashion before they issue any licence.
In this case, it is alleged that the SFA did not perform their function properly.
In relation to the wee tax case, it is said that either they did not make sufficient enquiry of Rangers re the payment to account or the agreement which they were told was in place. At the time it was mooted in the press that no such agreement was in place as at the relevant date ( June 30th ) and a simple check with the revenue would have shown the truth of the matter.
Yet, for whatever reason, no such check appears to have been made, and if you recall a Radio Scotland interview with Alistair Johnstone, Rangers submitted the forms, the SFA replied with one or two enquiries about the BIG tax case which were answered, and thereafter the Licence appears to have simply dropped through the letter box without further ado.
You will also recall that the existence of the wee tax case became known BEFORE Craig Whyte bought David Murray’s shareholding in May 2011. In fact it was the subject of News Paper headlines weeks before the deal was completed, and so the fact that there was a wee tax bill was well and truly in the public domain.
When it came to filling in the appropriate forms,either, the SFA were mislead by those then at Rangers with regard to that tax bill, OR, they simply failed to do the requisite checks and make reasonable enquiries before they issued the licence.
However, the uncomfortable fact also remains, that one of the chaps who must have been in the know re the admittedly unlawful and offending side letters, contracts and payments to the three players concerned was Campbell Ogilivie who was on the Rangers Board at the relevant time when the contracts and irregular payments were made under the Discount Options Scheme from 1999 to 2002/3. Indeed he may even have initiated the first payment to Craig Moore in 1999. I reiterate that no one has ever contested that this was an unlawful scheme, and the irregular payments and paperwork are not denied in relation to that scheme.
There are Celtic shareholders who believe, rightly or wrongly, that when it came to the granting of the Euro Licence, the SFA did not play them fair on this occasion and that the wheels within Hampden were oiled in such a way that Rangers were favoured and Celtic were disadvantaged. It is a point that looks to have already been considered by the Celtic Directors in 2011, with the result that they concluded that they should formally write to the SFA and seek clarification.
However, we now have the prospect of those same directors having to go back to Hampden and say ” Sorry, but I am forced to bring this up by my shareholders. I have a legal duty to them to enquire further”. Even if the motion is refused, the point has been made– there are shareholders who are demanding answers– just as shareholders of other clubs demand answers about the ever so secret 5 way agreement and other matters which have hitherto been not for public consumption.
The SFA have nothing to fear of course as they can simply repeat their previous answers,demonstrate that all was above board, and rest easy in their beds.
Except that answer did not satisfy the Celtic Directors on a previous occasion as they decided to take the matter to UEFA, and it would appear that some Celtic shareholders remain dissatisfied with the known stance of the SFA and so they want the Directors of the club to delve further. Without wishing to point out the obvious, if it turns out that the 2011 Licensing process was somehow fudged and not conducted rigorously or that those at Hampden were in any way economical with the truth or omitted certain details from the previous explanation, or covered up a failure in procedures—- well such omissions have a habit of becoming public these days whether that be through the internet or otherwise.
The point here is that the actions of Hampden officials are coming under organised, legal and planned corporate scrutiny over which they have no control. The Blazer and club mentality that was once so widespread within the governing bodies is under increasing attack and is being rendered a thing of the past.
In short, the move by Celtic shareholders, is making it plain that they will demand proper corporate governance from their club in ensuring that any alleged failure in corporate governance by the SFA or SPFL is properly investigated and reported on.
Of course, if it turns out that the 2011 Licensing process was somehow fudged and not conducted properly for whatever reason, then it could be argued that Celtic were disadvantaged in monetary terms along with other clubs who may have been awarded Europa League licences, then the consequences could be cataclysmic. Hence a tendency to circle the wagons rather than admit to failures in the process that need addressing.
It is this reluctance to come out and accept that the licensing process appears to have failed, say at what point the process failed and what needs to be done to address those failures that in many ways has driven the resolution. It is clear to all that something is amiss but the SFA will not admit it, probably from fear of the consequences of doing so? Perhaps some form of indemnity, a lessons learned enquiry with no prejudice might help?
It would come as no surprise to me at all if there were those at Hampden who live in dreaded fear of admitting that their processes were flawed and that a grave mistake was made. Under these circumstances, there may well be those at Hampden who simply wish that Celtic and their fans would just go away!
whatsthescore says: (9)
November 20, 2013 at 12:39 pm
================================
whatsthescore, I think your original post was clear in what it did and didn’t offer. Some have logically begun to pick apart the inconsistencies of the ECA pronouncements and others have given you a TD either because they didn’t like the message or misunderstood the messenger. I think your direct clarifications to those who responded to you are fair game. Others may think that they’re a bit personal. It will have impacted on the TDs, for sure. don’t know if your sharp responses are influenced by the high number of TDs, best get used to it or ignore it.
Also, you’re not the first to alert TSFM to the whole ECA issue, it’s been done to death a few times. Maybe that’s why there was no great response or outpouring.
whatsthescore says: (11)
November 20, 2013 at 12:54 pm
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I haven’t followed this thread so apologies if I missed it, but the belief that the SFA told ECA that Rangers are the same club is incorrect. It has been reported that way in the press, but you would expect that. The SFA said the “regard” Rangers as “a continuation” – which is a long way from saying they are the same club. Carefully chosen words, make of them what you will.
Where are they going to get the money to pay the fine ?.
============================
SPFL carry over fine to newcoCreated by oj17 – Today 08:55
Today 08:55
Perhaps share price movement was due to fact that another site – has released an excerpt from SPFL board minutes that show they will now chase the newco for a £250K fine that was imposed on the oldco for the EBT scandal. As SPFL cannot recover from liqudated company they have decided it is a footballing debt which newco agreed to cover as part of the 5 way agreement. Seems like everybody is trying to get their cash before second admin. Sell now before left with nothing
I’m not sure whether to call the new CEO Graham Wallace or Iain Wallace or Iain Graham Wallace so in the true ‘Gers tradition I’m going with Mr Wallace.
Today’s statement to the stock exchange re Mr Wallace says:
“Mr Wallace was employed by Manchester City Football Club, first as Chief Financial Officer (March 2009 – October 2010), and then as Chief Operating Officer (October 2010 – January 2013), during a period of unprecedented success in that club’s history. Whilst at Manchester City, Mr Wallace led the transformational changes in the business after the acquisition of the club by Abu Dhabi United Group, implementing world class business processes and corporate governance standards.”
Lets have a look at those world class business processes and corporate governance standards.
Total Current Assets
2008 £22,291,000
2009 £29,004,000
2010 £122,626,000
2011 £99,975,000
2011 £125,820,000
Net Worth
2008 £-35,296,000
2009 £-173,848,000
2010 £-359,278,000
2011 £-588,155,000
2012 £-695,065,000
Total Current Liabilities
2008 £139,828,000
2009 £282,726,000
2010 £561,541,000
2011 £783,819,000
2012 £936,516,000
So, over a five year period Mr Wallace oversaw a decrease in the company’s net worth of £659,769,000 and an increase in the company’s liabilities of £796,688,000.
The RIFC Plc statement goes on to say “Graham’s previous success and his strong financial background in football will be beneficial to lead Rangers to continued future success”.
The queue of potential Rangers saviours / sugar daddies will be getting longer and longer after today’s announcement.
Not The Huddle Malcontent says: (1029)
November 20, 2013 at 12:29 pm
I believe the answer to your rhetorical question is that the SFA has done nothing to promote balancing the books , there approach is uber lassiez-fair. The newly formed SPFL has tinkered around with new punishments for going into administration but my guess is that collectively Scottish football is waiting for all the chickens to come home to roost (e.g. Rangers again, Kilmarnock possibly if they get relegated soon) and when they have flushed away the debt , more draconian rules will be put in place by the SPFL.
Need to refresh my memory of the impact on the FFP , however we could do worse than start from these rules.
The blatant financial cheating at Ibrox at present to win SFL3 is staggering , there are always choices , increase the prices , stop handing out stupid contracts for that level of football …….. I believe the rules are inadequate to deal with multiple offenders / playground bullies and there is, at present, no impetus to meet this head on.
whatsthescore says: (9)
November 20, 2013 at 12:39 pm
…………………………….
I am sure the actual quotes from the ECA will be provided in due course.
Here is one to ponder..
“outlets in Scotland quoted this body as saying….’THEY HAD DIRECT COMMUNICATION WITH SFA WHO TOLD THEM THAT SFA CONSIDERED NEW RFC AS SAME AS OLD RFC’
The old football club the same as the new football club….anyone else see the irony? If it’s the 1 club there is no old or new. If it is the same club their ECA membership would not have been cancelled. If it is the same club they would not have had to apply for a new associate membership.
But importantly the ECA were provided the details of the situation by….CHARLES GREEN?!…now how would Charles have described the position?
As for UEFA…I can only point you to a direct response Auldheid had from UEFA…which stated they are a new football club…which is backed up by their website..
Or you could go to FIFA the governing body of world football and UEFA’s boss….who stated the existence of the club had come to an end after 140 years.
Or we could reference Walter Smith who confirmed their death…or Jim Traynor who also confirmed their death…or Neil Patey who confirmed their death…or Graham Speirs…who lost all his shares in the old club (1872-2012) who confirmed under insolvency laws…they are a new club..
I fully understand why SEVCO fans want…need…must have the club they followed continue…it is their life…however…insolvency laws state they do not…not opinion.
ringostar says: (11)
November 20, 2013 at 8:20 am
Graham Wallace, discuss?
===========================================================
Used to work for Rod Petrie.
It would appear someone has just sold over 3 million shares in Rangers Int
zerotolerance1903 says: (138)
November 20, 2013 at 1:25 pm
ringostar says: (11)
November 20, 2013 at 8:20 am
Graham Wallace, discuss?
===========================================================
Used to work for Rod Petrie.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Crivvens!! How crap would that be?
whatsthescore says: (11)
November 20, 2013 at 12:39 pm
You know something, the post above is what is wrong round here
————————————————————
You posted a link to information which had been misrepresented by the media and others posted clarification to address the MISREPRESENTATION, not to get in a battle of wits of who was right and wrong.
What is wrong around here – although thankfully rare – is posters flying off the handle and taking comments personally which were never intended to be personal.
12:59:00 41.00 3,328,672 1,364,755.52 O
from LSE. (time/price/number/consideration)
More interesting is that someone has BOUGHT over 3.3M shares in a slumping market.
A transaction of that size should produce a statement on AIM reporting increase or decrease in holdings over the reportable thresholds, so we should find out soon enough who the buyer & seller are.
rantinrobin says: (420)
November 20, 2013 at 1:29 pm
The interesting thing about this is that it is over 3% of the existing shares and the markets should be informed. Interesting development, a bit of price manipulation before the big sale.
It would appear some people may have to revise their arguments on the RFC history issue.
From ASA ruling on RFC using RFC(IL) history.
Whilst the ASA acknowledged that Newco had nit taken on all the debts and liabilities of Oldco when it purchased its assets and business and that that would normally preclude a business from trading on the reputation of a liquidated predecessor company, we noted having read its report in full that both an Independent Commission appointed by the SPL and the ECA had reached the conclusion that the football club RFC was a recognisable entity in its own right, and that it had continued in existence despite being transferred to another owner and operator. We consulted with UEFA, which explained that its rules allowed for the recognition of the “sporting continuity” of a club’s match record, even if that club’s corporate structure had changed. We also consulted with the SFA, which confirmed that its definition of a football “club” varied depending on context, and could sometimes refer to an entity separate from the club’s corporate owner. The SFA further pointed out that, following RFC’s transfer to a new corporate owner, Newco did not take a new membership of the SFA but rather that the previous membership was transferred across to them so they could continue as the same member of the SFA. We considered that consumers would understand that the claim in question related to the football club rather than to its owner and operator and we therefore concluded that it was not misleading for the ad to make reference to FRC’s history, which was separate to that of Newco.
MoreCelticParanoia says: (64)
November 20, 2013 at 1:45 pm
I didn’t take any comments personally, I became annoyed when posters wrongly assumed and inferred that my view was the same as some within MSM.
The key will be what price the seller of the 3,000,000 shares paid to buy those shares in the first place.
whatsthescore says: (13)
November 20, 2013 at 1:58 pm
We also consulted with the SFA, which confirmed that its definition of a football “club” varied depending on context, and could sometimes refer to an entity separate from the club’s corporate owner.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++
What context would that be?
that 3M shares – is that the CEO’s golden handshake?
sorry mate, no cash to give you, but here are some shares that you have approx 4 weeks to sell – oh, and by the way, it’s likely you’ll be free to find further employment at the end of those 4 weeks as well
good luck then
The ECA is basically just a load of football clubs grouping together, presumably to protect their interests. It is not a governing body, though it is recognised by the Governing body UEFA. There arc 5 Scottish members – Celtic, Motherwell, Aberdeen, Hearts and Rangers.
Celtic and Motherwell are ordinary members, The other three are associated members.
http://www.ecaeurope.com/about-eca/
“The European Club Association (ECA) is the sole, independent body directly representing football clubs at European level. It replaces the G14 Group and the European Club Forum, both dissolved at the beginning of 2008. ECA was fully recognized by UEFA and FIFA in a formal memorandum of understanding, which was signed in January 2008.”
and
ECA Objectives:
•to safeguard and promote the interests of European club football in particular, and club football in general;
•to represent the interests of the clubs as employers and to act as a social partner where appropriate;
•to contribute to the healthy development of European club competitions organised by UEFA, by taking part in the relevant decision-making process;
•to contribute to the good governance of European football, in particular by participating in the appropriate bodies established within UEFA;
•to foster the exchange of information and expertise between clubs and other football stakeholders;
•to support and uphold the sporting values aand principles on which European football is based;
•to maintain contacts, cooperation and negotiations with any football-related organisations, or with any relevant public and private institutions as well as with non-member clubs.
================================
What they opine whilst interesting hardly equated to an endorsement by either the national Governing body or the European one.
whatsthescore says:
============================
Only if one thinks the Advertising Standards Authority has any real say in the matter.
For me I’ll stick with the Scottish Football Association and League considering them a new club until someone can come up with something more compelling.
beatipacificiscotia says: (199)
November 20, 2013 at 2:05 pm
Why not ask ASA it their statement, whether you like it or not it would appear they have spoken to both Uefa and SFA and according to the reply’s they received from both they now see no problem letting Rangers use the history in advertising campaigns.
There was a post on this site last week(TSFM deleted it) that stated that things like this would happen. The poster stated that in their view this was a result of RFC being the establishment club and the establishment would do all in it’s power to protect RFC.
The poster also looked over some of the key decisions that have taken place and asked how could these decisions have been arrived at given the things we know to be true.
Did anyone really expect that if an official body asked SFA for an opinion on RFC and it’s history that SFA would do anything other than confirm that it was indeed the same club?
Can I just say that I was one of those fans that were outraged when it looked like SPL?SFA?SFL were about to do a deal re new RFC and what league they were put in. The campaign from fans at that time was truly impressive but unfortunately since that time fans of every club, apart from CFC it would appear, have let the issue drop. As a result of no fans, other than Celtic, continually raising the issue of RFC and their history, it has allowed the MSM and RFC fans to perpetuate the myth that the new club is indeed a continuation of the old. MSM have now labeled Celtic fans as “obsessed” because of their continued insistence that RFC is a new club with no history.
The MSM have got away with this because you see almost no comment on this issue on the forums of other Scottish clubs.
I noticed on Phil’s site that someone plans to take a petition to the Scots Parliament on this issue, now that is something that should have been done months ago.
whatsthescore says: (13)
November 20, 2013 at 1:58 pm
0 11 i
Rate This
It would appear some people may have to revise their arguments on the RFC history issue.
From ASA ruling on RFC using RFC(IL) history.
” We consulted with UEFA, which explained that its rules allowed for the recognition of the “sporting continuity” of a club’s match record, even if that club’s corporate structure had changed.”
It’s corporate structure didn’t change, it went into liquidation.
“We also consulted with the SFA, which confirmed that its definition of a football “club” varied depending on context, and could sometimes refer to an entity separate from the club’s corporate owner.”
Where was this “corporate owner” prior to October 2012? I gather it was one of the Sevco companies that went through a couple of switcheroos and is still going strong as Rangers International FC. Meanwhile Rangers FC Ltd went into liquidation.
So ironically for the “the company went bust not the club” fantasy, the corporate owner continues stronger than ever while the club is in liquidation.
“The SFA further pointed out that, following RFC’s transfer to a new corporate owner, Newco did not take a new membership of the SFA but rather that the previous membership was transferred across to them so they could continue as the same member of the SFA.”
Newco. You did get that right?
Didn’t the ASA perform a U turn on this subsequently? Who made the ASA the ultimate arbiter of what is a football club anyway.
All this demonstrates is the extraorindary lengths the Scottish Football Authorities will go to, to preserve and promote a lie.
No need for revising any “arguments” as they are in fact – fact.
whatsthescore says: (13)
November 20, 2013 at 1:58 pm
0
5
Rate This
Quantcast
It would appear some people may have to revise their arguments on the RFC history issue.
From ASA ruling on RFC using RFC(IL) history.
Whilst the ASA acknowledged that Newco had nit taken on all the debts and liabilities of Oldco when it purchased its assets and business and that that would normally preclude a business from trading on the reputation of a liquidated predecessor company, we noted having read its report in full that both an Independent Commission appointed by the SPL and the ECA had reached the conclusion that the football club RFC was a recognisable entity in its own right, and that it had continued in existence despite being transferred to another owner and operator. We consulted with UEFA, which explained that its rules allowed for the recognition of the “sporting continuity” of a club’s match record, even if that club’s corporate structure had changed. We also consulted with the SFA, which confirmed that its definition of a football “club” varied depending on context, and could sometimes refer to an entity separate from the club’s corporate owner. The SFA further pointed out that, following RFC’s transfer to a new corporate owner, Newco did not take a new membership of the SFA but rather that the previous membership was transferred across to them so they could continue as the same member of the SFA. We considered that consumers would understand that the claim in question related to the football club rather than to its owner and operator and we therefore concluded that it was not misleading for the ad to make reference to FRC’s history, which was separate to that of Newco.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
What is the source?
A search for “Rangers” on the ASA website comes up with
http://www.asa.org.uk/Rulings/Adjudications.aspx?SearchTerms=rangers#2
There doesn’t appear to be anything else, other than what appears an acceptance by the company that a misleading advert or statement be withdrawn. Searches for RFC, TRFC, RIFC and even Sevco draw a blank.
From the ASA website.
whatsthescore says: (13)
November 20, 2013 at 1:58 pm
We also consulted with the SFA, which confirmed that its definition of a football “club” varied depending on context, and could sometimes refer to an entity separate from the club’s corporate owner.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++
What context would that be?
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++
http://www.thedrum.com/news/2013/08/06/independent-reviewer-reopening-case-against-rangers-fc-most-successful-football-club
Maybe you should check out this. You did present this as evidence of something. You may want to think again.
Don’t worry about answering my previous question about “what context”, I know you don’t have an answer.
Tif Finn says: (871)
November 20, 2013 at 2:25 pm
3 0 i
Rate This
whatsthescore says:
============================
Only if one thinks the Advertising Standards Authority has any real say in the matter.
For me I’ll stick with the Scottish Football Association and League considering them a new club until someone can come up with something more compelling.
————————————————
Yes, like The Rangers having to take part in the League Cup from round 1 rather than the 3rd round as “the same club” would have been entitled to on the basis of their 2nd place finish in the SPL the previous season.
And what exactly are BDO being paid for if they didn’t go into liquidation?
According to the recent regulatory news update for AIM last week, the only parties who owned enough shares to be able to sell the 3.328,672 which were sold today are :
Artemis
Hargreave Hale
Laxey
Blue Pitch
MoreCelticParanoia says: (65)
November 20, 2013 at 2:29 pm
Direct your arguments to ASA as that’s their latest statement on the issue. It was sent to one of the complainers of the original ruling.
So it makes no difference that you can tear apart their statement, what’s interesting is that they have spoken to both Uefa and Sfa and as a result have concluded that RFC is entitled to use oldco history. Not my argument or position, I am merely the messenger.
beatipacificiscotia says: (200)
November 20, 2013 at 2:34 pm
You’re way behind mate, please keep up
ASA says:
“… Newco did not take a new membership of the SFA but rather that the previous membership was transferred across to them so they could continue as the same member of the SFA.
——
Was there not recently a member of the SFA who owed Mr Hector a lot of money? What does this (coughphoenixcough) “same” member have to say about that, I wonder?
Presumably, somewhere there is a list of “members” of the SFA stating how long they have been recognised as such?
whatsthescore says: (14)
November 20, 2013 at 2:29 pm
Why not ask ASA it their statement, whether you like it or not it would appear they have spoken to both Uefa and SFA and according to the reply’s they received from both they now see no problem letting Rangers use the history in advertising campaigns.
____________________________
Because we already know the answer.
The SFA fudged/bottled it/lied. UEFA are in the same boat as ASA and just accepted whatever the SFA said on such a trifling matter of no consequence to them. If Sevco ever qualify for Europe we will see their view on it.
As pointed out the ASA subsequenltly changed their decision requiring Sevco to amend their adverts.
So what would be the point?
What exactly are you trying to prove with this anyway?
Posted on CQN by Winning Captains
http://www.celticquicknews.co.uk/?p=14177&cpage=2#comment-2000128
Reply to WC from Auldheid
http://www.celticquicknews.co.uk/?p=14177&cpage=3#comment-2000163
Given that the SFA have a vested interest in the myth that the current RFC is in fact the old RFC their reply to the ASA is hardly surprising. The good folk at UEFA are only interested in looking after themselves. If the SFA say it’s ok why would they rock the boat.
The SFA should be asked what the difference was between Craig Whyte’s takeover and Charles Green’s because the outcome was completely different. Why was there no transfer of membership in May 2011?
But we know what the answer will be so what’s the point.
whatsthescore says: (16)
November 20, 2013 at 2:39 pm
0 3 i
Rate This
MoreCelticParanoia says: (65)
November 20, 2013 at 2:29 pm
Direct your arguments to ASA as that’s their latest statement on the issue. It was sent to one of the complainers of the original ruling.
————————————————-
You’re proving yourself to be quite a mendacious character.
You posted the alleged statement from the ASA saying:
“It would appear some people may have to revise their arguments on the RFC history issue.”
I was merely pointing out that there is no need for myself, or many others on this site to amend our arguments as they are backed by the facts.
Therefore I directed my “arguments” (facts) to you, although no more than any other reader of the site.
If I was paranoid I would think you are trying to post misinformation and for it to go unchallenged, with this “direct your arguments elsewhere” talk. That’s not how a forum works.
Incidentally I see the one TD wonder is out in force today. I wonder what he/she hopes to achieve by stubbornly leaving 1 TD on every post.
MoreCelticParanoia says: (67)
November 20, 2013 at 2:47 pm
It’s clear from that statement, which was sent to the complainer in the last 7 days, that SFA have clearly stated that RFC history carries over. Uefa have also said that liquidation doesn’t necessarily mean an end to a club’s history.
Now on this site several posters have been shouting when did SFA or UEFA ever state that RFC retained the history of the liquidated club? Well now we have proof that both these organisations have indeed stated that. They may not have staed it publicly but they have now stated it as a matter of record. Unless you’re saying that ASA have lied to those that complained we have to accept that the official position will soon be that RFC retained their history. You may disagree, which is your right, but officially, if not legally, the history did indeed survive.
Has anyone actually seen anything directly linked to ASA with reference to the recent outbreak of postings? All I’ve seen is a repeat of a message posted on CQN with some unattributed words. I have the feeling that we are in danger of another “RIFC PLC share suspension” viral outbreak. For the time being, I’ll add this to the line of squirrels that I count at bedtime trying to get to sleep. If I see some corroborative evidence, I’ll re-evaluate the situation.
MoreCelticParanoia says: (68)
November 20, 2013 at 2:54 pm
“Incidentally I see the one TD wonder is out in force today. I wonder what he/she hopes to achieve by stubbornly leaving 1 TD on every post.”
Oh please, don’t live up to your title please.
whatsthescore says: (18)
November 20, 2013 at 2:57 pm
0 0 i
Like I said, we all know the SFA bent over backwards to accommodate the same club lie. This is not new and it proves nothing. The facts are when it came to the crunch Sevco had to start in the League Cup 1st round as a Division 3 new club. If and when Sevco qualify for Europe UEFA will treat them as a new club.
I don’t understand why you are pursuing a flawed ruling of some body which knows nothing about football, that subsequently had to be revised, with such vigour
Whats the score
The official ASA site indicates the last and therefore current position on Rangers , is that they have withdrawn their adverts which claim to be the worlds most successful club.
I couldn’t care less about newclub/sameclub but if people are going to make claims it should at least be based on fact
whatsthescore says: (18)
November 20, 2013 at 2:57 pm
Appreciate the point you are trying to get across but the whole issue can be sorted quite simply.
Instead of placing multiple posting here why don’t you drop a line to Campbell Ogilvie and Stewart Regan asking for a definitive statement on how, the authority that matters – The SFA – regard the team currently playing at Ibrox and their claims to history, titles etc.
You know as well as I do that they will not give you, the fan/man in the street, a clear answer.
Why do they have such a problem explaining themselves to their customers? That is the real question.
The Cat NR1 says: (24)
November 20, 2013 at 3:01 pm
Winning Captains and Auldheid are both respected posters over on CQN, Auldheid is even know to post on here I believe. If they both believe this is an official response to a complainer of the RFC history issue then that’s good enough for me. I understand it’s related to Phil’s latest blog which can be found here.
http://www.philmacgiollabhain.ie/independent-reviewer-to-recommend-no-further-action-to-asa-over-rangers-complaints/
Barcabhoy says: (285)
November 20, 2013 at 3:03 pm
__________________________________________________________________________
Note use of the words “without the need for a formal investigation”.
Barcabhoy says: (284)
November 20, 2013 at 2:36 pm
7 0 Rate This
According to the recent regulatory news update for AIM last week, the only parties who owned enough shares to be able to sell the 3.328,672 which were sold today are :
Artemis
Hargreave Hale
Laxey
Blue Pitch
=================================
should we expect another Statement from AIM today on this?
1. someone has now purchased >3% (a notifiable event)
2. someone has sold their stake and now own <3% (a notifiable event)
So, we'll find out who sold them and who bought them – no?
MoreCelticParanoia says:
===========================
The same for the SFA’s own tournament apparently. As it was a new club they had to start in a much earlier round than the top teams do.
Not The Huddle Malcontent says: (1031)
November 20, 2013 at 3:12 pm
0 0 Rate This
Barcabhoy says: (284)
November 20, 2013 at 2:36 pm
7 0 Rate This
According to the recent regulatory news update for AIM last week, the only parties who owned enough shares to be able to sell the 3.328,672 which were sold today are :
Artemis
Hargreave Hale
Laxey
Blue Pitch
=================================
should we expect another Statement from AIM today on this?
1. someone has now purchased >3% (a notifiable event)
2. someone has sold their stake and now own <3% (a notifiable event)
So, we'll find out who sold them and who bought them – no?
—————————
The statement should come from RIFC. They have until the close of business the day after the share transaction to notify the market via an RNS (Regulatory News Statement ) announcement
whatsthescore says: (20)
November 20, 2013 at 3:02 pm
0 8 i
Rate This
MoreCelticParanoia says: (68)
November 20, 2013 at 2:54 pm
“Incidentally I see the one TD wonder is out in force today. I wonder what he/she hopes to achieve by stubbornly leaving 1 TD on every post.”
Oh please, don’t live up to your title please.
———————————————–
Given your sudden emergence on the site today you are probably unaware that others, far less paranoid than me, have commented on this phenomenon several times.
I realise that producing evidence is often seen as symptom of paranoia by those viewing things with a certain hue in their bubble of circular reasoning but here goes, just a small selection from today. Nice work if you can get it Jack:
1. yakutsuki says: (144)
November 20, 2013 at 8:24 am
52 1
2. Danish Pastry says: (1699)
November 20, 2013 at 8:33 am
20 1
3. Cortes says: (48)
November 20, 2013 at 8:37 am
10 1
4. Bawsman says: (232)
November 20, 2013 at 8:39 am
31 1
5. Yellohoose says: (13)
November 20, 2013 at 8:43 am
80 1
Finloch says: (218)
November 20, 2013 at 8:52 am
20 1
6. blu says: (447)
November 20, 2013 at 8:56 am
10 1
7. MoreCelticParanoia says: (69)
November 20, 2013 at 8:58 am
43 1
8. seminal says: (8)
November 20, 2013 at 9:13 am
32 1
9. stevensanph says: (191)
November 20, 2013 at 9:15 am
64 1
10. Seamus says: (5)
November 20, 2013 at 9:15 am
60 1
11. wottpi says: (1277)
November 20, 2013 at 9:17 am
27 1
12. Joburgbhoy says: (20)
November 20, 2013 at 9:27 am
38 1
MoreCelticParanoia says: (69)
November 20, 2013 at 9:29 am
33 1
13. stevensanph says: (191)
November 20, 2013 at 9:31 am
39 1
14. sickofitall says: (202)
November 20, 2013 at 9:43 am
40 1
15. jockybhoy says: (264)
November 20, 2013 at 9:50 am
36 1
Bawsman says: (232)
November 20, 2013 at 9:53 am
27 1
16. Long Time Lurker says: (668)
November 20, 2013 at 9:59 am
28 1
17. jimlarkin says: (648)
November 20, 2013 at 10:00 am
18 1
18. Bawsman says: (232)
November 20, 2013 at 10:01 am
13 1
19. valentinesclown says: (276)
November 20, 2013 at 10:01 am
49 1
20. The Cat NR1 says: (24)
November 20, 2013 at 10:32 am
11 1
21. No1 Bob says: (53)
November 20, 2013 at 10:49 am
13 1
22. Danish Pastry says: (1699)
November 20, 2013 at 10:52 am
19 1
23. blu says: (447)
November 20, 2013 at 11:21 am
4 1
24. Barcabhoy says: (285)
November 20, 2013 at 11:31 am
35 1
25. MoreCelticParanoia says: (69)
November 20, 2013 at 11:53 am
13 1
Tif Finn says: (871)
November 20, 2013 at 11:54 am
16 1
26. rantinrobin says: (420)
November 20, 2013 at 11:55 am
15 1
35.Tic 6709 says: (564)
November 20, 2013 at 12:12 pm
15 1
wottpi says: (1278)
November 20, 2013 at 3:06 pm
4 0 i
Rate This
whatsthescore says: (18)
November 20, 2013 at 2:57 pm
Appreciate the point you are trying to get across but the whole issue can be sorted quite simply.
Instead of placing multiple posting here why don’t you drop a line to Campbell Ogilvie and Stewart Regan asking for a definitive statement on how, the authority that matters – The SFA – regard the team currently playing at Ibrox and their claims to history, titles etc.
You know as well as I do that they will not give you, the fan/man in the street, a clear answer.
Why do they have such a problem explaining themselves to their customers? That is the real question.
___________________________________________
Does anyone seriously think that if the SFA really did regard them as the same club they wouldn’t be shouting it from the rooftops? So why don’t they make a clear and unequivocal statement on the matter? The answer is obvious. They’re not
MoreCelticParanoia says: (71)
November 20, 2013 at 3:25 pm
4 1 Rate This
___
Does anyone seriously think that if the SFA really did regard them as the same club they wouldn’t be shouting it from the rooftops? So why don’t they make a clear and unequivocal statement on the matter? The answer is obvious. They’re not
======================
if they are regarded as the same club then how do the SFA/SPL explain their expulsion from the SPL, entry to earlier rounds of the cup, withholding of prize money, allowing players to have registrations terminated and walk for nothing, having 2 different clubs registered at the same time and having to transfer one membership to the other?
if they are the same club….the SFA has some explaining to do! If I were a RFC/Sevco fan – i’d want compensation and a few sackings!
whatsthescore says: (20)
November 20, 2013 at 3:07 pm
The Cat NR1 says: (24)
November 20, 2013 at 3:01 pm
Winning Captains and Auldheid are both respected posters over on CQN, Auldheid is even know to post on here I believe. If they both believe this is an official response to a complainer of the RFC history issue then that’s good enough for me. I understand it’s related to Phil’s latest blog which can be found here.
http://www.philmacgiollabhain.ie/independent-reviewer-to-recommend-no-further-action-to-asa-over-rangers-complaints/
______________________________________________________________________________
Thanks for that. I can just about track that through now. A lot of that seems at odds with what the ASA website says, so it may still be worth waiting to see if they do issue a statement. I’ll give you a TU.
Not The Huddle Malcontent says: (1032)
November 20, 2013 at 3:38 pm
2 0 i
Rate This
MoreCelticParanoia says: (71)
November 20, 2013 at 3:25 pm
4 1 Rate This
___
if they are the same club….the SFA has some explaining to do! If I were a RFC/Sevco fan – i’d want compensation and a few sackings!
___________
Hence why all the bad feeling and hence why the issue is important!
Many RFC fans seem to genuinely believe the fantasy
There seems to be a deal of distraction on the site today. I wonder why that might be???
Paulmac2 says: (789)
November 20, 2013 at 1:17 pm
Got to go out soon but to clarify I have never had a direct response from UEFA although I did try through someone.
The Tweeter lines are twisting and turning on this
http://www.celticquicknews.co.uk/?p=14177&cpage=3#comment-2000163 which suggests UEFA’s position is twin track.
It all points to someone asking UEFA to clarify intent of Article 12 and impact on a clubs sporting history (which is its only history).
The question is who. ASA, the SFA, Celtic having been accused of bringing game into disrepute because of either a disreputable law or a twin track interpretation of it.
Happy to get feedback but will be off line for a while.
whatsthescore – not speaking for MoreCelticParanoia but did you really only know the ASA’s initial ruling and not the they had revised their ruling and that NewGers had acquiesced without the requirement for a formal investigation? It was common knowledge amongst most posters here (quite gleefully seized upon in fact), though admittedly the SMSM made a lot less of that than they did the original decision.
If you are pleading ignorance of that, then fair enough, we’ll allow your defence of “ignorance of the facts”. If you did know about it, but chose to deliberately omit this information to bolster your position, I would certainly think that could be described as mendacious.
Happy to help 😀
Guys, why does the sale of 3.3 Million shares not impact the share price one iota?
Genuine question.
BTW whatsthescore:
The following was part of the letter sent our by the independent adjudicator that casts doubt on your statement that “these bodies” have “indeed stated that [RFC retained the history of the liquidated club]”.
I said that I had concluded, inter alia, that it was a procedural flaw for the ASA to have relied on an extract only of a report sent to it by the advertiser [NewCo], and that there was also the risk of a substantial flaw of adjudication in the distinction that had been made between ‘club’ and ‘company’, especially in the light of previous ASA decisions about companies that change hands and the circumstances in which the new company could or could not trade off the reputation of the old company. I recommended that in these circumstances the investigation should be reopened and the published adjudication should be withdrawn.”
In the light of this referral, NewCo declined to risk further investigation and withdrew their challenge to the ASA ruling. This is in keeping with a post I made previously which said that NewGers were willing to take every means possible, except legal in their challenges, the inference being that they refuse to put themselves in a position where there could be a definititve legal “No, they are not the same club/company” adjudication.
Happy to expand on this theme if you wish me to.
Nice squirrel BTW 😀
whatsthescore says: (21)
November 20, 2013 at 3:50 pm
0 6 i
Rate This
MoreCelticParanoia says: (72)
November 20, 2013 at 2:54 pm
You’ve been reading to many judgements on Dave King and unless I’m mistaken you fail to understand the word mendacious. If you do however understand it then please share with the blog where it’s use can be attributed to anything I’ve said?
————————————————
The users of this site understand full well the meaning of the word, as do I, so I have no further need to elaborate on it, nor to go on some wild goose chase asking ASA about their flawed and rescinded rulings.
You issued a challenge to many of us on the site, to the effect that we should revise our opinion on the new club matter based on some half baked information you pulled from an unknown source, which was subsequently shown to be out of date. Then when others responded to you, you retreated, disavowing the information posted, patronisingly telling us to speak to a third party. Mendacious much?
Through this exchange we managed to establish the square root of zero that we did not already know – the SFA used a form of weasel words to indicate that possibly maybe probably under a full moon perhaps Sevco could be viewed as a continuation of Rangers FC and UEFA said “aye whatever we’ll get back to you if and when they qualify for Europe”
You still haven’t explained why you are pursuing this with such zeal and are so vexed by our responses.
It’s almost like you actually want the ASA statement from the unknown source to be the definitive take on the matter
Bawsman says: (233)
November 20, 2013 at 4:26 pm
The markets are run by a shadowy cabal of institutions unofficially called “market makers” who decide the prices and regulate the trading of shares. There is not always a buyer for every seller, and vice-versa so market makers will often carry a positive and negative balance of a particular share, and alter that price to equalise their position. If they have a buyer and seller at the ready at the current price, the current price will not be affected.
MCP
I realised it was the Toxic ‘Jack’ you were refering to but had to highlight what IMO was an absurdity or a joke. For someone logging on for the first time, it would not leave a good impression.
GJ 4:44pm
The fact that approximately 75% of posts have 1TD even the most innocuous and uncontroversial is an absurdity?
Yes, I agree
MCP
I just don’t think it very important tbh.
However you are free to do what you want with your time and thinking about time, feel it best to end this conversation as it has no where to go.
Given that GJ has weighed in with the paranoid chestnut it’s interesting to recap:
Whatsthescore appears posting some half baked information about ECA purporting to support the claim that UEFA view Sevco as a continuation of Rangers.
Posters on here call this out for the mince it is
Whatsthescore goes away in the huff
Whatsthescore comes back with more half baked unsourced information that purports to support the claim that ASA view Sevco as a continuation of Rangers – as if their opinion matters – and tells us we have to revisit our arguments and if we don’t like it take it up with ASA
And I’m the one doing paranoid research?!!
What’s the score indeed
It seems that Gordon Smith is giving the current Rangers board, and their recent appointment his seal of approval.
http://www1.skysports.com/football/news/11095/9033484/spfl-smith-backs-wallace-to-bring-stability-to-rangers
Former Rangers director of football Gordon Smith believes new Ibrox chief executive officer Graham Wallace will bring much-needed stability to the club.
Rangers announced the 52-year-old’s appointment to the Stock Exchange on Wednesday morning, just four weeks before the club’s eagerly-awaited annual general meeting.
And despite the former Manchester City chief operating officer requiring to be re-appointed at the AGM, Smith is convinced the timing of the move shows the intentions of the current board.
Club chairman David Somers claimed Wallace was the ‘outstanding candidate for the post’ and Smith is looking for the Dumfries-born businessman to turn around the fortunes of the club.
Speaking to Sky Sports News, the former SFA chief executive said: “He has a very good pedigree in sport and business which the club were looking for to make the transformational changes required.
“Top of his agenda will obviously be to put strategy in place whereby the club can be run on a proper financial basis.
“I think one of the big problems they have, and it is my understanding they continue to have, is that a lot of money came in from the share launch but that money has been heavily spent.
“The club now needs to be run on a basis, like any other business, that they are not going to get into any financial difficulty and require to go into the situation where they were in the last couple of years.”
Asked about the wisdom of appointing Wallace so close to a potentially explosive AGM, Smith claimed it will send a message to those questioning the desire of the current board to remain in charge post-December 19.
“If they had gone to the AGM next month some of the questions would have been ‘what have you being doing to that extent?’, ‘you don’t have a chief exececutive officer in place’.
“They are bound to face some very strong questions. There are factions who really want to take over the club and we need to find out from that AGM who actually will have the majority of the share that will allow them to run the club going forward.
“So whether it will be the current people or new directors and owners, what they are trying to show now is they are already putting things in place. When it comes to the AGM they can say ‘we have appointined a very, very strong chief executive’.”
From BBC website.
Rangers: SPFL board considers pursuing £250,000 fine
http://t.co/gtRhn98QYZ
There is one thing that could sort the old club are the new club fantasy out quite easily .
Let SR come out publicly and state as fact that Ragers 1872 and Sevco 2012 are the SAME CLUB and show us all the proof .
Bearing in mind as to the lengths of rule bending ,rule breaking and just made up rules that the SFA concocted for their favourite pet ,anyone with half a brain cell would realise that if they were the same club then Regan would have summoned the whole of the only too eager MSM to the biggest venue (Sevco would even cancel a game to allow it at Ibrokes ) and prove all us bampots wrong .The only trouble would be that SR would never get near the microphone because CO would demand that he should be the one to tell the PEEPIL the great news .
Can any sevco 2012 fan explain why they have not done so ? 😯 😯
Good evening
First post on here, although I am a regular lurker. The text I posted on CQN today for the attention of Auldheid is from ASA. Also there seems to be some confusion about the “wee ASA case” that was withdrawn by Newco Rangers. This related to them claiming in a circular that a hugely unrealistic percentage of the Scottish population supported them. It was challenged and quickly withdrawn. I think some people on here are confusing the ASA position on one case with the other. Hope this helps. Also hope all goes well for Hearts this week.
whatsthescore says: (21)
November 20, 2013 at 2:57 pm
‘…..You may disagree, which is your right, but officially, if not legally, the history did indeed survive..’
——-
This is such manifest nonsense that it’s scarcely worthy of comment.
Liquidation is death.
A club , the raison d’etre of which is to play football and which was member of an association that required it to play football as a condition of membership, went out of business.
It could no longer engage in the business of playing football.
It therefore could no longer be a member of the SFA.
A gang of ‘businessmen’ bought the stadium and the training ground etc that the dead football club had used.
They then set up a brand new football club, which was (illicitly) granted membership of the SFA.
That new club quite patently has no right to claim the sporting or other honours that were won by or granted to the dead club.
The supporters of the dead club may delude themselves as much as they wish.
That counts for nothing in the real world.
What does matter is that the SFA and other football authorities MUST ENSURE, in the name of sporting integrity, that the official record book does NOT pander to the delusioned and attempt to attribute these titles and honours to the brand new club.
That would be a wicked perversion of all that is sane and rational, never mind all that is just and fair and sporting.
Others on this blog may professedly have become tired of repeating this truth, in their desperation to ‘move on’.
I ask: move on to where?
To the continuation season after season of a corrupt football administration?? and a corrupted idea that there can be integrity where there is misgovernance, wrongful governance, perverted and distorted ‘governance’ of the kind we have seen? ??
To accepting mildly that the supporters of the single greatest act of cheating that has ever taken place in football in this country should simply be allowed to carry on??
To yet more cheating when the need arises??
The hole that the SFA have dug themselves into , every shred of credibility ripped from them, every word they now utter being listened to with dark suspicion that the tongue is false, can only be filled with the the resignation letters that the guilty men must be made to submit .
RIFC plc IS a new football club, now in its second season, with one title to its name.
Let us all recognise that fact, and insist that the footballing authorities publicly recognise that fact. Only then can we even begin the process of ‘moving on’.
rantinrobin says: (421)
November 20, 2013 at 5:27 pm
Rangers: SPFL board considers pursuing £250,000 fine
————–
It will be interesting to see how this squares with Neil Doncaster’s secret side-letter which (if Charlotte’s revelation was genuine) stated that, notwithstanding the 5WA, the SPL would not take action against Sevco for rule breaches by RFC related to EBTs.
Bawsman says: (233)
November 20, 2013 at 4:26 pm
10 0 Rate This
Guys, why does the sale of 3.3 Million shares not impact the share price one iota?
Genuine question.
————
Yes, you’d think there could be a kind of chain reaction with more sellers than buyers and a fall in the price as folks try to offload pronto.
I had otherwise imagined the share price would rally today with news of a new appointment.
WRT the endless wrangling on here today about ASA & oldclub/newclub
the BBC once again use a picture of the name ‘Rangers’ from the Ibrox gates
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/25023927
but have omitted the rest of it ie. ‘The – – – – – – – Football Club Ltd’.
If it’s the same club, what are the BBC playing at ?
I’m surprised Ally McCoist hasn’t demanded to know.
Jack, get on here quam primum and tell us what you’ve done.
So Scottish Football is seeking another artificial preference.
If the £250,000 fine was imposed on the old club then why should the new club pay it.
And also, more importantly, what sanction could / would they impose if they simply refused to pay the money.
MoreCelticParanoia says: (76)
November 20, 2013 at 5:13 pm
Haha, Jesus do you have a life outside this blog? Serious question. I post then get on with my life and according to you this means I go away in a huff lol. You really do need to get more. I’m just about to have my dinner and will reply fully when I care. This is a blog and sometimes, well very occasionally someone posts something revealing, unfortunately some of you take it far to seriously and appear to see only that which suits your own narrow agenda.
whatsthescore says: (21)
November 20, 2013 at 2:57 pm
MoreCelticParanoia says: (67)
November 20, 2013 at 2:47 pm
It’s clear from that statement, which was sent to the complainer in the last 7 days, that SFA have clearly stated that RFC history carries over. Uefa have also said that liquidation doesn’t necessarily mean an end to a club’s history.
Now on this site several posters have been shouting when did SFA or UEFA ever state that RFC retained the history of the liquidated club? Well now we have proof that both these organisations have indeed stated that. They may not have staed it publicly but they have now stated it as a matter of record. Unless you’re saying that ASA have lied to those that complained we have to accept that the official position will soon be that RFC retained their history. You may disagree, which is your right, but officially, if not legally, the history did indeed survive.
……………..
Parts of the above are correct for example the liquidated clubs history will remain as a historical account…that will never change…just the same as the History is still available for the maiden voyage of the Titanic…try and buy that history.
The SFA…can say what they like…in fact they could state it is perfectly ok to drive at 120 mph…as long as you are a member of the SFA…does this mean it is factually correct? ….the same organisation who offered their opinion to a commission when they were the appellant body? an opinion that stated it is ok to cheat as long as you don’t get caught before the last game of the season in question….so the SFA have been discredited in so many ways as to be untrustworthy in any comment they make…UEFA have never commented on their existence…they have certainly given a general view of structured ownership.
Ask yourself these questions…if you are so keen to look for confirmation of their existence.
1. Why did Walter Smith say he wished the NEW club well?
2. Why did Graham Spiers state that under insolvency law they are a new club?
3. Why did SMSM have front page headlines stating the club has died?
4. Why did Richard Gough state it was a NEW club?
5. Why has no one ever been taken to court for referring to them as a NEW club?
6. Why did FIFA announce the death of the club.
7. Why did Graham Spiers lose his RFC shares from the old club?
There are many more….but most important of all…if they are the same club…why are they not prepared to explain why they will not repay the outstanding debts and Tax of approx. £53 million? rising to approx. £139 million depending on the UTT?
http://www.asa.org.uk/Rulings/Adjudications.aspx?SearchTerms=rangers#2
Sorry if already posted or way off mark, but does the link show that advertising was withdrawn so
there was not an investigation or unwanted publicity and why is there one ruling dated today from
The source group who I believe look after the advertising screens at Ibrox.
Tif Finn says:
November 20, 2013 at 5:55 pm
So Scottish Football is seeking another artificial preference.
If the £250,000 fine was imposed on the old club then why should the new club pay it.
—————-
The new club (Sevco) signed up to the Five-Way Agreement which committed them to pay all footballing debts of OldCo. It also bound them to accept responsibility and punishment for any rule breaches by OldCo.
However, the fine was imposed specifically on OldCo (by LNS) some time after the 5WA, so it’s not clear if they can chase NewCo for the money. There is also (as I mentioned earlier) the question of the (alleged) secret indemnity given to Sevco by Neil Doncaster.
shame chucks offski or he could’ve done one of his letters and copied in platini & blatter.
and Campbell obviously.
Tif Finn says: (874)
November 20, 2013 at 5:55 pm
6
0
Rate This
So Scottish Football is seeking another artificial preference.
If the £250,000 fine was imposed on the old club then why should the new club pay it.
And also, more importantly, what sanction could / would they impose if they simply refused to pay the money.
________________________________________
So the SFA consider that their own arbitrarily assigned fines take legal precedence over both HMRC and other creditors?
What message does this send to creditors and taxpayers?
The message: “Its OK to rob your creditors and stiff the taxman, as long as we get our cut, you can carry on playing football unmolested “-) “.
Corruption to the Core.
Sorry, but every supplier of every good and service in the land should boycott the SFA and ALL Scottish member football clubs if this is allowed to stand. At the very least, they should insist on cash in advance, or else no supply.
I mean, how do you know Campbell Ogilvie won’t slide in in front of you when you are due for payment and shake a club down on threat of removal of its licence, leaving nothing for the small creditiors?
And HMRC should immediately write to the SFA and all clubs and demand a bond against future taxation, for the very same reason.
Talk about having your cake and eating it. Utterly shameful.
RFC rob and bury their creditors. Then the SFA steal their rings and urinate on the grave.
I mean – how can you issue a maximum fine for cheating on a club that has no money, NOT strip the titles that were won as a result, but transfer the fine (and presumably then the titles????) to a new legal entity!
Pheonixism is fraud, and the SFA are paid accessories after the fact! They should face criminal charges for conspiracy to defraud the taxpayer.
This whatsthescore character bears ( pardon the pun ) all the hallmarks of a MH plant, or maybe even the organ grinder himself, who has been known to trawl ( or should that be troll ) various message boards trying to influence opinions.
No Jack, it’s not just Celtic fans who see Sevco as a new club, we all do.
Unlike you, we deal in facts here.