Since it appears that there are some organised campaigns on the blog designed to embroil us in this terminal nonsense again and again, I have introduced this new thread. Anyone wants to debate this as an alternative to sticking pins in ones eye, here’s the place.
Usual rules as far as TSFM-etiquette apply.
bryce9a says: (80)
December 3, 2013 at 8:45 am
Sorry to intrude on this fascinating discourse. (Good move TSFM)
So, let me get this right……
After taking up most of the minds on this blog for the last couple of weeks. After every one of your attempts to reinterpret the meaning and spirit of the rules and regulations of the game was debunked. After all the whataboutery and numerous attempts to rewrite recent history. After 70 odd posts full of woolly hypothesis, wild speculation and ill-considered comparison. Despite it being proven beyond reasonable doubt that ‘club’ and ‘company’ are indivisible (ergo The Rangers are a NEW club) the best you can come up with is……
The Rangers are still the same ‘club’ because YOU (and presumably the rest of your teams supporters) ‘think’ they are ?
Are you sure you’re not Neil Doncaster ?
As my daughter would say. Epic Fail!
Love the title đ
IWCYADTTY says: (4)
December 18, 2013 at 11:58 am
15 1 Rate This
I donât post here very often, but am an avid reader. There are many posters here who are far more insightful than me.
However, I was just having a wee perusal of the ASA ruling regarding TRFC. Nice to see the SFA provide a definitive answer.:
âthe SFA, which confirmed that its definition of a football âclubâ varied depending on context, and could sometimes refer to an entity separate from the clubâs corporate ownerâ
So the club and company can be one and the same when it suits.
What a shower of cowards. The whole thing is an absolute sham
http://www.asa.org.uk/Rulings/Adjudications/2013/12/The-Rangers-Football-Club-Ltd/SHP_ADJ_224406.aspx
———-
A concrete example of situations of varying ‘context’ would have been good from the SFA. They get away too easily with posting tripe that goes unquestioned.
ddd
How refreshing to hear the Dundee Utd supporters singing “your not Rangers anymore” at Ibrox yesterday.
This should be sung at every game that TRFC play, to remind TRFC and their supporters that they are a new club with 2 years history( until Administration/Liquidation 2).
Scottish Football needs to constantly remind TRFC and their supporters of this to ensure that they are never allowed to forget this
M8Dreamer says:
April 13, 2014 at 10:14 pm
Administration/Liquidation 2).
You can’t get liquidated twice đ
Sorry slightly off topic, and I definitely do not wish to stir up an old club new club debate, but JoeMillersShorts just posted a link to an article on the World Cup thread that got me thinking. In the article the author, by way of example, mentioned Patrick Thistle fans singing songs about Celtic and “Rangers”. What I found interesting about this was that the author put “Rangers” in inverted commas. I’m pretty sure I understand why he did this. I realise that most people here refer to TRFC. JamesForrest is fond of Sevco Rangers. PhilMacGhiollaBhain prefers “the klan”. I just wondered if anyone would ever refer to Rangers in an unqualified manner, or if fellow posters always felt the need to provide a distinction when referring to Rangers.
I myself don’t, as has been evident many times. I know several posters (Barcabhoy I believe, perhaps Ecobhoy, may well be wrong) have said it is up to Rangers fans how they view their club, and fair play to them for that. As I said, I don’t wish to start the same old debate, just trying to take the temperature of the blog.
TSFM – if this is an inappropriate question for the main blog and should be moved then I apologise and please do move / delete it.
Ryan. It was a political / sociological article on a political website. As everyone on this site is well aware football does not exist in a bubble free from society. Nor should it.
Joe, didn’t realise the source. Although if it was posted on a political / sociological website, I’d question the value in posting here. I don’t think football exists in a bubble, but I think we have to tread a fine line on this blog between discussing football in its context and risking debates which spiral beyond all relevance. As I said previously, I agreed with a lot of what the author said, but just think care should be taken in the direction of debates. Please correct me if you disagree.
RyanGosling says:
June 19, 2014 at 11:32 pm
‘.or if fellow posters always felt the need to provide a distinction when referring to Rangers.’
———
Wonder not, Ryan: fellow posters feel the need to acknowledge ‘truth’.
RIFC plc/ TRFC is not RFC as was. And all the fervent wishes and hopes of however many ( 500,000, 000, according to CG!) cannot and will not make it so.
And not even the chicanery and deceit of the 5-way agreement can make it so.
The titles and honours won honourably by RFC belong to RFC.
The shame and disgrace of the monumental cheating perpetrated by RFC belong to RFC (shared,of course equally by the SFA board, the (then) SFL board, and the SMSM.
What belongs to TRFC is a very modest footballing success, and the seemingly perpetual chicanery and internecine strife that has become embarrassing to watch.
There are none so blind as deceitful, self-seeking football administrators. Except,perhaps, self-deluding
and fundamentally betrayed, loyal fans.
John Clark,
You’ve answered my question at least! And I understand what you mean, I really do.
I’m trying to tread a fine line between starting the bonkers debate here. What I was getting at is, while a distinction must be drawn between old and new rangers, I personally believe that if someone said “Rangers against Hearts in the first game of the Championship”, everyone would know what team was being referred to. I understand the points you make. My question was, notwithstanding your points, do any posters here refer to “Rangers” simply as Rangers, or does everyone make some distinction in the name.
Honest question, I’m not trying to argue any point, and I sincerely hope that “self deluding fans” was not aimed at me.
RyanGosling says:
June 19, 2014 at 11:32 pm
2
11
Rate This
_______________________________________________
‘Rangers’ / TRFC has become a shibboleth.
There is a reason it cannot be called ‘Rangers FC Ltd.’ and instead it has to be called The Rangers Football club. The reason is to do with the consequences of cheating. And it is not something that anyone at Ibrox has any right to gloss over, far less try and finesse others into so doing.
The entity that currently inhabits edmiston drive is not the same Wavetower FC that won those 50 odd titles. Because if that were to be the case, then no footballl club anywhere could ever be compelled to behave in an any way honest manner ever again. Its that important.
The continuity was broken. To use an analogy: a substitute came off the bench and slotted into the place of a player that left the field of play. The first player left the field because a broken leg left him unable to continue. The broken leg was sustained in the commission of an egregious foul for which – by rights – he should have been dismissed with a red card anyway.
The substitute who took his place on the park may have the same surname. He may have a very similar sounding Christian name He may be tasked with the same role. He may behave in a similar manner. But he is not the same player. The number on his shirt is different.
And he isn’t on a hatrick like the player he replaced was. Trying to claim otherwise would only make him look foolish and dishonest.
And he hasn’t been booked like the player he replaced was. Lucky him!
I use TRFC because ‘The Rangers Football Club’ is their name.
They used to be called sevco,so that is acceptable too – like Muhammed Ali used to be called Cassius Clay. Same man, 2 names.
Rangers and TRFC are 2 distinct footballing entities with similar sounding names. Both currently still exist, but only one is still involved in the game. So calling TRFC Rangers would not be correct, nor – given the circumstances I have outlined, seemly or proper, in my view.
RyanGosling says:
June 20, 2014 at 12:27 am
‘…do any posters here refer to âRangersâ simply as Rangers, or does everyone make some distinction in the name. ‘
———-
I think it’s likely that most posters do make the distinction, conscious of the concerted campaign by the media and the Football Authorities to get us to ‘move on’ in the hope that the gross wrongdoing done by them will be forgotten.
Occasionally, though, the odd poster will use the word ‘Rangers’, rather than Sevco, TRFC, ‘new club’ or whatever.
That is regrettable. But such posters almost certainly mean ‘Sevco’ etc ( unless of course their post is actually referring to RFC as was).
And, of course, I was not referring to you as being a ‘self-deluded’ fan.Your very useful posts are clear evidence that you are anything but!
Resin Lab Dog – again, I totally understand where you are coming from, and I agree with you. Ian not arguing for anything to be swept under the carpet. In fact I’m not arguing for anything, I was merely asking a question. My point is that if you say rangers everyone knows what you mean. If people want to make a clear distinction when referring to them to reference between old and new, I understand that, and only asked to see what peoples feelings were on the name. Not the name of the company, which is different, or the club blah blah blah (!!! We’ve all been through this) but just how people would refer to it in casual conversation or indeed debates on a blog,
By way of explaining myself, I shall give two examples. Both of the friends I mention are die hard Celtic fans, although they could easily be fans of other teams and hold the same views. The first friend has not uttered the word Rangers I don’t think since liquidation, Sevco only for him. Doesn’t really car about any of the stuff we debate here but likes to wind up his “Rangers” supporting mates. The second friend does know and care about the stuff we debate here, but always just refers to “Rangers” because he knows I know what he means, and I know he knows what he means.
RyanGosling says:
June 19, 2014 at 11:32 pm
———————
Ryan, I am comfortable enough referring to rangers without inverted commas, but only when referring to the pre 2012 model. The various distinctions you mention are(for me anyway) a way of ensuring we don’t get sucked into propagating the big lie, and I’m pretty sure you understand that.
You make the point that it is up to TRFC fans how they view their club, and I agree with that. However, it is up to the rest of us to decide how we view your club. I don’t expect TRFC fans to share my viewpoint, and equally I would expect TRFC fans to understand that very few fans in Scotland share their viewpoint.
It may come across as petty or sad, but imo these distinctions are important as a constant reminder that people won’t be sucked into the big lie, we won’t just roll over while the SMSM tickles our belly.
John Clark,
Thanks for your final clarification, I appreciate that.
I would like to expand on your point that it is “regrettable” that people refer to “Rangers” (insert your name of choice here!) as Rangers, and the implications that has for “moving on”. Leaving aside the regulatory change which I think to a man, or woman, we all agree has to happen, how would you see us moving on? Are “Rangers” and by extension their fans always destined to be outsiders as far as this blog and Scottish football as a whole is concerned? I’ve heard and commented on the requests for Rangers to show contrition etc as a requirement for moving on, but I doubt the current office holders of the club will do that on behalf of the previous office holders or themselves, and the vocal obnoxious fans on the internet certainly won’t. The SFA by virtue of their secret agreements have screwed all fans of Scottish football, and I mean all fans, myself and my brethren included. So how can we move on together?
RyanGosling says:
June 20, 2014 at 12:51 am
0
0
Rate This
________________________________________
‘Jags’ could refer to ‘Partick’ or ‘Caley’.
‘Caley’ could refer to either Caledonian Thistle of old, or the new club ICT.
No objection to people using ‘Rangers’ as a shorthand. It would be laughable to try and stop bears talking about sevco as ‘the gers’.
But there is a constituency that wants to airbrush from history an episode which damaged the sport massively and from which important lessons have unfortunately still to be learned.
These are the people that need a great big ‘THE’ to remind them of this fact.
When/if those lessons are actually learned, I shall feel alot less strident about policing my acronyms
It all comes down to context.
Oldbhoy99
“However, it is up to the rest of us to decide how we view your club. I donât expect TRFC fans to share my viewpoint, and equally I would expect TRFC fans to understand that very few fans in Scotland share their viewpoint.”
I am totally on board with this statement and think you have summed up the impasse very well.
For what it’s worth I think if all conversations on this subject were based on an assumption of decency and good moral standing on both sides there would be no need for any heated debates ever, a common understanding could very easily be found. Alas, I recognise that will not happen and I know that there is a large proportion of responsibility for that which should be assigned to my side.
Resin Lab Dog,
You’re getting right to the heart of why I brought this up in the first place. I’m reading between the lines here obviously, but I take what you said to mean that if none of the “lie” had been perpetuated, and a new club had been started and recognised as such, openly and honestly, you’d have happily (or at least willingly) called them Rangers without the need for qualification? Therefore the qualification on the name is an indicator that until honesty prevails the qualification is required?
RyanGosling says:
June 20, 2014 at 12:57 am
1
0
Rate This
…So how can we move on together?
__________________________________________
The tried and tested method is to agree to disagree about irreconcilable differences and build trust by focusing on areas where there is potential for agreement:
I can immediately see 2 huge areas where there is real potential for the majority of TRFC fans to unite and agree wholeheartedly with the rest of Scots football, and speak together as one voice:
1. The governance is not fit for purpose and has failed the game. A public admission of failure, resignations and a plan to fix things and move forward is needed.
2. Ally McCoist is a mince footballing manager đż .
RyanGosling says:
June 20, 2014 at 1:06 am
2
0
Rate This
_______________________________________
Exactly so.
RyanGosling says:
June 20, 2014 at 1:01 am
Ryan, the OCNC debate imo will never have a satisfactory conclusion. However, given enough time maybe enough people can accept our new terms of reference that we can all move beyond that debate and focus on the larger issue; namely the many failures of the SFA.
Wishful thinking? Possibly, but I know that TRFC fans have no love for the SFA (probably for different reasons than everyone else mind). I think this is the area where common ground can be sought, as fans of all clubs have been shafted by them, including rangers.
RyanGosling says:
June 19, 2014 at 11:32 pm
================================
At the end of the day it doesn’t matter to most people if Rangers fans view the current entity as the same club. Who knows how we all may react to such a scenario. What does matter is the authorities in Scotland appear to have worked with the current entity to create a vision that nothing has changed, when in reality there was no previously separate club and it was liquidated. It shows the cultural power the Rangers support have in Scotland when this can happen. I think it is safe to say that no other Scottish football entity would receive such favourable treatment. I often wonder what the SFA stance would have been had it been Celtic that were liquidated. My view is the SFA may well have wanted the new entity to be part of the league due to its fan base, but it would be made clear it was a year zero start in terms of trophies. I really can’t get my head round why the SFA chose to say this new Rangers entity has the history of the one that was liquidated. There is no reasonable explanation other than fear, or naked bias. I don’t believe the scar will ever heal for fans of clubs who played by the rules yet see this new entity receiving such preferential treatment.
RyanGosling says:
June 19, 2014 at 11:32 pm
3 22 Rate This
I just wondered if anyone would ever refer to Rangers in an unqualified manner, or if fellow posters always felt the need to provide a distinction when referring to Rangers … I myself donât, as has been evident many times. I know several posters (Barcabhoy I believe, perhaps Ecobhoy, may well be wrong) have said it is up to Rangers fans how they view their club, and fair play to them for that. As I said, I donât wish to start the same old debate, just trying to take the temperature of the blog.
——–
It’s a fair question. Most of the posters above have answered your query.
Personally, I find even “TRFC” difficult, because from the start the whole enterprise has been illegitimate â in my eyes, at least. TRFC is too close to the original for my liking. But it is the accepted legal name.
If the liquidation process completes without requesting a formal name change to something other, then TRFC it is. In 5-10 years I expect they will just be “Rangers” again. Perhaps fans of whatever club is playing out of Ibrox will even doff their bunnetts to Craig Whyte & D&P. They have somehow helped create an almost identical clone club, debt-free (well, it was at the time) with more or less the same name, and with most assets intact (so far). A trick worthy of a magician â and all this rubber-stamped by the SFA.
The downside is that fans are now trapped in a same name/same club financial con. In years to come, though, the accommodations and rule bending used to lever the new club in with almost identical name may be a cause for huge regret. The folks running our football have sold the Ibrox faithful short and served them up to a group of dubious characters. But you never know, the distinction in name used by most on here may, one day, be welcomed by Ibrox supporters. If the con becomes unbearable they will at least be able to refer to a place where the same name/same club lie has been exposed. And to paraphrase a biblical quote “the truth could set them free”.
I see the old club new club debate has reared its ugly head again. It will never go away and the bonkers page on this blog has helped tone it down a bit. The share chat page on the LSE site is clogged up witth it but that may be a function of the shares not doing anything for weeks on end.. The EBT scheme may be back in the news as Christian Nerlinger if he returns to The Rangers got a ÂŁ1.8 million “loan” from the old club and I am sure the press will be all over it . đ
It was a fair question from Ryan, it’s probably those of us responding who’ve sent it into the bonkers domain.
PS Since I’m here â yes it is đ
RyanGosling says:
June 20, 2014 at 12:27 am
My question wasâŚdo any posters here refer to âRangersâ simply as Rangers, or does everyone make some distinction in the name.
âŚâŚâŚâŚâŚâŚâŚâŚâŚâŚâŚâŚâŚâŚâŚâŚâŚâŚâŚâŚâŚâŚâŚâŚ
âŚâŚâŚâŚâŚâŚâŚâŚâŚâŚâŚâŚâŚâŚâŚâŚâŚâŚâŚâŚâŚâŚâŚâŚ
I call your club âRangersâ without (conversational) qualification, Ryan, and I noticed the brief return to the (gloriously circular) discussion about the âcorrectâ nomenclature for the team playing out of Ibrox.
Amongst other things (and this is now directed towards anyone whoâŚwell, isnât Ryan, I suppose), it was (broadly) suggested by a range of contributors that those of us who refer to this club as âRangersâ were falling into a trap, that our actions were âregrettableâ and that we (unwittingly or otherwise) give succour to The Big Lie through our choice of words. (The Big Lie, for the uninitiated and my unborn son, being that Rangers Football Club didnât die â which, of course, it did.)
Some of us watched the attempt to separate the company from the club with a fascinated suspicion that morphed towards outright incredulity â a transcending mixture of excited disbelief and borderline arousal. Is it at all possible, we wondered with joy, that people might actually be so catastrophically self-deluded? The answer, of course, is Yes â emphatically so. (Humans? What are they like?)
However, two things:
First, a technicality: The word âRangersâ seems a perfectly acceptable diminutive of the words âThe Rangers Football Clubâ â and, as such, not immediately or necessarily any more offensive (unless youâre actively trying to find a reason to take offence, of course â and thereâs a lot of it about) than abbreviating âManchester Unitedâ, say, to âMan Uâ.
And, contrary to the apparent fears of so many, whilst using this âRangersâ diminutive, it remains possible that our cognitive facilities may continue to function otherwise unimpaired: to wit, we may use this term whilst retaining both a clear conception of the newborn entity and a clear memory that the word âRangersâ was ascribed to the dead entity. Multi-tasking. Itâs a gift.
Second, fans of this club call it âRangersâ and thatâs just fine by me â who am I, after all, to instruct them to behave otherwise? As a general (and explicitly personal) rule â and there are limits, of course – it feels reasonable and natural to afford people the courtesy of addressing them by the name(s) they call themselves.
Which, depressingly, may beg the question: If the roles were reversed, might we expect the same courtesy (or respect) in return? Hardly, but so what? If we see someone behave abysmally, or suspect that they might behave abysmally at some unspecified point in the future, weâre under no pressing obligation to behave abysmally ourselves. That way lies a race to the bottom; a morally squalid dead-end. (Or Glasgow, as some might have itâŚand they would of course be wrong, Your Honour.)
None of this is to suggest that referring to Rangers as âSevcoâ or âTRFCâ (or whatever) is either âwrongâ or cause for rueful regret. On the contrary, it remains perfectly possible for people to understand and respect (and entirely agree with) this approach whilst choosing something quite different for themselves. And whereâs the problem with that? Why should this difference be viewed as âregrettableâ, â[un]seemlyâ or â[im]properâ? (I tell you what, but for a white, middle-class chap, it feels terrifically exciting to be able to pass myself off as a put upon victim for once. I can see why so many are at it.)
If we call this club âRangersâ we propagate (and/or buy into) The Big Lie? Hmm. Some of us may feel differently. Donât fall for The Big Lie? I didnât. We wonât. But please be careful lest you fall into the trap of believing yourselves somehow qualified to (automatically) judge right from wrong in this instance.
True, you may not like or agree with these reasons for calling Rangers âRangersâ, which is perfectly fair enough â you will be highly qualified, after all, in assessing your own likes, leanings, instincts and outlooks. What you necessarily lack, however, is the authority to definitively pronounce on the likes, leanings, instincts and outlooks of others.
(Forgive the following diversion, please, but glancing back at what Iâve already written and rather dreading what on earth I may write next, I anticipate it to be prudent:
Although Iâm writing this here (on TSFM); although I may occasionally reference comments [you] made here; although it may appear as if a charge is being laid directly at your door and that your variable motives, actions or intentions are being miscontextualised and/or mischaracterised, the setting and what goes on here is broadly immaterial to the nature of this lament and in no way constitute its sole or particularly intended target.
But those of us who are not Rangers fans and yet nevertheless call Rangers âRangersâ â and weâre a motley bunch, Iâm betting, generally living in the shadows, skulking, badly in need of a self-help group where we might talk and share with fellow sufferers â find ourselves frequently assailed from the (internetty) sidelines, subjectively declaimed as being categorically in error and as part of the problem itself.
I lose track of the times Iâve seen people (or been that person) variously hauled-up, chastised, âeducatedâ, vilified and dismissed for calling Rangers âRangersâ. Itâs internet-wide, not TSFM-specific, is all Iâm trying to say, and itâs becoming quite exhausting. At least here, on TSFM, we may find ourselves being disemboweled with civility. It feels like a safe-haven, comparatively, when you see whatâs out there. The horror. The horror.)
Those who legitimately choose not to call Rangers âRangersâ have correspondingly never once shown themselves to be in a position to legitimately dictate these terms to others. Some may have lost sight of this simple fact, as well as misappropriating Descartes along the way, perhaps: I think this; therefore Iâm right.
They also (sometimes) give the unfortunate impression of seeing themselves as having a monopoly on the moral outrage provoked by the corruption and cheating at Ibrox. They donât. Some of us simply choose not to wear it on our sleeves, day in, day out, day inâŚ
To suggest that our actions are therefore misguided or actively help propagate The Big Lie is maybe a little careless, to put it as politely as possible.
Besides, some may also simply have an inherent disinclination to poke angry bears with what might occasionally feel like a rather clumsy and obvious stick. I donât know.
But in good faith, good people, you run the risk of overestimating your own authority whilst underestimating the intelligence of others. Gonnae no dae that?
If TRFC ever reach the SPFL, could the SPFL ever be sued if they promote the TRFC as RFC in their league.
Say like a missinformation on the product if they promote the TRFC as if it was still the same RFC. You buy a season ticket on the pretence your club will be playing RFC if it’s promoted as such only to go watch your team play TRFC.
COULD YOU SUE?
and if you could will the SPFL be already made aware of how they are to promote TRFC if ever they reach the dizzy heights of the SPFL?
Interesting “discussion” on LSE site.
Claim that the SFA backed DUNDEE UTD when DDU said that SevcoRangers were only 2 years old, regarding the Charlie Telfer “Transfer”.
http://www.lse.co.uk/SharePrice.asp?shareprice=RFC
Here is a link to an article relevant to this thread. Just a health warning, though- if you live in the West of Scotland, do NOT follow the author’s advice to wear a prominent lapel badge informing the world that you believe that Rangers the club died in 2012. To do so would be very foolish, in my opinion. I agree with the author on this much- freedom of speech has effectively been suspended on this topic, except under the cloak of anonymity. If the author is writing under his real name. then he is a very brave man- unless he lives in Timbuctoo.
http://saynotothesameclub.wordpress.com/2014/10/11/what-to-do-about-the-same-club-myth/
RyanGosling says:
June 20, 2014 at 12:57 am
I would like to expand on your point that it is âregrettableâ that people refer to âRangersâ (insert your name of choice here!) as Rangers, and the implications that has for âmoving onâ. Leaving aside the regulatory change which I think to a man, or woman, we all agree has to happen, how would you see us moving on? Are âRangersâ and by extension their fans always destined to be outsiders as far as this blog and Scottish football as a whole is concerned? Iâve heard and commented on the requests for Rangers to show contrition etc as a requirement for moving on, but I doubt the current office holders of the club will do that on behalf of the previous office holders or themselves, and the vocal obnoxious fans on the internet certainly wonât. The SFA by virtue of their secret agreements have screwed all fans of Scottish football, and I mean all fans, myself and my brethren included. So how can we move on together?
————————————————————-
Personally some people in my opinion will never move on unless every trace of Rangers is obliterated from Scottish Football.
That’s not my position – irrespective of my personal view wrt to elements of the Rangers support – and I have exactly the same view with regard to elements of the Celtic support.
The problem that any Scottish football fan is confronted with IMO is the lack of governance provided by the SFA – which may indeed amount to corruption – and the utter and patheic failure of the SMSM to probe and expose the SFA failings.
Make no mistake! Rangers fans in particular have suffered more than anyone through the SFA’s dereliction of duty IMO. And they have also suffered more than most through the failures of the SMSM to do their job and uncover the facts and publish them.
And ‘facts’ are what this has to be all about and indeed I remember when the forerunner to this site and even this site was solidly based on factual discussions. Now the norm appears to be speculation based on speculation.
For the sake of Scottish Football we have to get back to dealing with and discussing the facts. Part of that IMO entails accepting that there will always be a ‘Rangers’ in Scottish Football.
It doesn’t actually matter whether the current new Board fails or not – there will be a replacement whether it is MA or fans starting again on Glasgow Green. That is the reality and if the Rangers fans have to accept certain facts then so does everyone else IMO.
The type of club that Rangers supporters want to have is their choice and really nothing to do with anyone else as long as they accept and follow the rules and are treated in the same way as every other club.
That for me is the bottom line – otherwise the oldco/newco debate will continue in its inevitable circular manner long after I have shuffled off this mortal coil. And there will never ever be an acceptable resolution or conclusion.
We have to move beyond T3B, Dave King or MA. Seriously what will be will be in terms of the financial future of this particualr Rangers legal entity and possibly a few still to come.
Jayzus there’s a General Election campaign underway which has the potential for massive changes for the future of every UK citizen and tbh Rangers in that context is small beer indeed.
I hope this post isn’t moderated because I believe this blog needs to engage with Bears – if we don’t then it will be a lost opportunity to not only improve Scottish Football but to cleanse the SFA and also to shame the SMSM into actually finding some ethics and possibly a wee bit of professionalism.
I won’t go as far as asking them to find courage because the current journos have absolutely no backbone. I know that; you know that and so do they.
jimlarkin says:
September 27, 2014 at 12:20 am
Interesting âdiscussionâ on LSE site.
Claim that the SFA backed DUNDEE UTD when DDU said that SevcoRangers were only 2 years old, regarding the Charlie Telfer âTransferâ.
—————————————————————–
Is there any truth in the claims? From memory the formula for the payment is clearly laid-out in the rules so it’s easy enough to check.
Personally doesn’t float my boat as that Board has now gone and new things happening and anyway I only go to LSE for a laugh at the madness that goes on there day and daily.
On the ongoing subject of incorporation, can i ask for people to consider 3 scenarios which are identical to the Rangers issue.
Rotherham United founded 1925
https://www.themillers.co.uk/club/club-history/
Oldco 2008 – https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/05764000 – Incorporation shown
Administrators statement 15th October 2008 –
https://www.scribd.com/document/381373701/Rotherham
Note:
2.1 The Adminstrator identified that the major value in the Club derived from its ability to compete in the Football League and various knockout competitions. To do so, the Club must hold a share in each of the Football League and the Football Association.
2.3 The sale process, as outlined in full in the Administrator’s proposals resulted in Rotherham Untited (RUFC) Limited “newco” making an offer of £200,000 for the Club together with funding the Administration until completion and the transfer of the Shares referred to above
4.1 Although the CVA was rejected by the creditors, under the agreement with the Football League to transfer the share, a further sum of £75,000 is to be paid by the newco
This is the Newco 2008 – https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/06550400
Liquidation commences 7th February 2009 of Oldco –
https://www.scribd.com/document/381379795/Rotherham-Liquidation
The FA handed out a 17 point deduction for failing to exit administration and Rotherham continued playing in the Football League. Full story here:
https://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/sport/rotherham-united-hit-by-17-point-penalty-1-2511185
________________________________________________________
Luton Town founded 1885 –
https://www.lutontown.co.uk/club/club-history/
Oldco 2006 – https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/04977080 – Incorporation shown
Administrators statement 17th June 2008 –
https://www.scribd.com/document/381373659/Luton-Town
Note:
3.2.1 As previously explained the joint administrators identified that the major value in the Club derived from its ability to compete in the Football League and various knockout competitions. To do so, the Club must hold a share in each of the Football League and the Football Association.
4.1.3 The administrators accepted a conditional offer on 20 February 2008 from LTFC 2020 in the sum of £1,625,000 (together with a write off of the £520,000 loan in any event) for the business and assets of the company, conditional upon the successful transfer of the Football League share.
5.6 HMRC voted for the rejection of the Administrators proposals for a CVA therefore the the proposed CVA was rejected.
This is the Newco 2008 – https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/06133975
Liquidation commences 17th November 2008 of Oldco –
https://www.scribd.com/document/381380838/Luton-Town-Liquidation
The football league handed them a 30 point penalty and stated:
https://www.independent.co.uk/sport/football/football-league/luton-town-hit-with-points-penalty-864607.html
"A Football League statement today read: "Luton Town were unable to agree a CVA with their creditors and as a consequence are unable to satisfy the normal conditions of the League's insolvency policy for exiting administration.
"The board decided, however, that they were prepared to exercise their absolute discretion under their 'exceptional circumstances' provisions in order to accommodate the new entity.
"In accordance with recent precedent, the board decided to include the following principle conditions of entry as a pre-requisite to the exercise of that discretion.
"1) The new company (Luton Town 2020) should pay the unsecured creditors the amount offered at the time of the CVA hearing (16 pence in the pound).
"2) A 20-point deduction should apply in the 2008-09 season, which also takes into account the fact that this is the club's third insolvency event in the last 10 years."
————
The above is a clear and unreserved acknowledgement of the continuation despite no CVA and a subsequent liquidation of the oldco
_________________________________________________________________
Leeds United founded 1919
https://www.leedsunited.com/club/leeds-united-history
Oldco 2008 – https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/00170600 – Incorporation shown
Administrators statement on the rejection of the CVA – 9th August 2007
https://www.scribd.com/document/381381212/LeedsCVA
Note:
2.2 Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs (‘HMRC’) lodged a challenge to the CVA, pursuant to Section 6 Insolvency Act 1986 (”the Act”) and Rule 1 17A, in the High Court of Justice, Leeds District Registry (“the Court”) on Tuesday, 3 July 2007. The basis of the challenge included, inter alia, that HMRC had been prejudiced due to football creditors receiving a higher dividend than other unsecured creditors, the basis on which three named creditors had been admitted to vote, that a potential breach of Section 216 of the Act – Restriction on re-use of Company Names had not been disclosed and that other inaccurate statements may have been made in the CVA proposal
2.3 A directions hearing took place in the Court on Friday, 6 July 2007 to set a date for the full hearing of HMRC’s challenge. Due to the complexity of the matters being considered, the judge listed the matter for a five day trial commencing on 3 September 2007, being the earliest available date
2.4 The full hearing date was three weeks after the 2007/08 football season commences and the supervisors expectation was that the judgement might not be handed down until late September/early October 2007, and could be subject to appeal.
2.5 The challenge by HMRC meant the Company could NOT complete the current CVA due to constraints of time and funding. In essence the administrators were not confident that sufficient funding could be generated from the sale of players to trade the Company through the conclusion of the Court process in respect of HMRC’s challenge
2.8 Under these circumstances, the supervisors concluded that there was no reasonable likelihood of the CVA being implemented. Accordingly on 16 July 2007 and Abort Certificate was issued pursuant to paragraph 15 1 1 of the CVA proposal.
This is the Newco 2007 – https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/06233875
Liquidation commences 17th November 2008 of Oldco –
https://www.scribd.com/document/381382155/Leeds-Liquidation
The football league handed them a 15 point penalty and it was noted:
"Bates placed Leeds in administration with debts of £35m before the end of last season so as not to incur a 10-point deduction for the forthcoming campaign. Administrators KPMG then agreed to sell the club straight back to the former Chelsea chairman, despite other bids. But Bates's offer to pay off creditors at a controversial Company Voluntary Agreement meeting was legally challenged by the Inland Revenue, who were owed £7.7m in unpaid taxes.
With the start of the new season fast approaching, administrators KPMG then decided to scrap the CVA and put the club back on the market. This prompted several other parties to make fresh offers, but Bates resubmitted his original offer and emerged victorious. The Football League objected to the fact that Bates had retained control for a third time without a CVA meeting where creditors could vote on whether to accept an offer to repay monies owed."
https://www.theguardian.com/football/2007/aug/09/newsstory.leedsunited
In all 3 scenarios above.
Oldco went into administration.
CVA was rejected or appealed and aborted.
liquidation process began
Administrators sold club to Newco
Newco took over the club
Club deducted 15 points and continued
Oldco went into liquidation
Still the same club in the views of the FA, the fans, opposing fans, rival fans and everyone.
Just testing as previous post went into moderation. Admin if you can please advise if its ok to post the previous one as it goes to the heart of incorporation and was hoping to get some views from others. If not then no problems.
I see the OC/NC argument in quite a simple form.
TRFC is a new club that has been allowed to trade under the name of the old club.
That is what the Scottish football authorities permitted under the 5WA.
The history of the old club is the old club's, the history of the new club is the new club's. The football authorities record the history under the same trade name to provide the illusion of continuity.
Simples!
easyJambo
20th August 2018 at 17:27
=====================================
I agree, as do the new club when it comes to things like the debts of the old club.
I fully expect the usual, "No those were the debts of the old company" answer. However that only works if someone can show me where the separation of the club and company happened. I simply see no evidence of that, in fact it only reared its head later, after pretty much every news outlet had reported on the club dying.
I'm talking about actual evidence, or even a decent plausible explanation. Not some random person saying "Yes it's the same club", for every one of them there's another one saying "No, its a different club", I see your Neil Lennon and raise you Donald Findlay QC (Former Vice Chairman of Rangers).
Rangers continue to be treated as, supported as and reported on as the continuation of the soon to liquidated club.
…………
This may show why page 25 to 35.
http://downloads.bbc.co.uk/bbctrust/assets/files/pdf/appeals/esc_bulletins/2013/apr_may.pdf
âRangers Football Club was founded in 1872 as an association football club and
was incorporated as a company on 27th May 1899. Rangers fans are of the view
that the club remained a separate entity â despite the incorporation into a
company â and when the parent company applied for administration on 14
February 2012 (then was subsequently put into liquidation) only the parent
company was affected by the process, not the âclubâ component of the
organisation. This is not a universal view, and certainly carries no legal definition
Did one of the Hearts fans on here not post proof positive of Hearts exiting administration and I'm almost certain none of the sevco fans did the same so for me either do as the Hearts fans and show proof positive or give it a rest as you're giving my erchie a headache.
Darkbeforedawn 20th August 2018 at 17:12
BB really? A picture from a tabloid that universally on here no-one agrees with anything ever written apart from one front page headline.
…………….
At the time did you agree with that headline?
…………
Are you really expecting me to look at that image and state “well that’s me told, I guess we’re dead.
………….
At that time did you look at that image and think we’re dead?
OK, here's another question I've posed before – and received no answer from those desperate to believe TRFC = RFC.
If Sevco (Scotland) Ltd hadn't gone through the legal formality, producing a legal document for all to see, of changing it's name to The Rangers Football Club, would there be a 'Rangers FC', of any description, plying it's trade out of Ibrox in the SPFL today?
The answer, of course, is NO, but if anyone thinks differently, can they tell me, and please include the mechanics of creating a club called 'Rangers' in such a circumstance (giving an example if one exists) whereby it could come to pass that a 'Rangers' now exists!
You see, if it's not possible, then Sevco (Scotland) Limited is 'The Rangers FC' (which they factually are), a limited company with no other 'club' floating around.
Allyjambo 20th August 2018 at 19:18
I have one.
OK, here’s another question for those desperate to believe TRFC = RFC.
If it is the same club who you believe finished the season 2011/2012 as the same club who started the season 2012/2013 and if you believe that.
On 31 October 2012 At the Court of Session in Edinburgh, Liquidation was given the green light by judge Lord Hodge.
If liquidation was given the Green light on the 31 oct 2012 to this same club, why were they playing a week later? or was it perhaps another club On 31 October 2012 At the Court of Session in Edinburgh, Liquidation was given the green light by judge Lord Hodge.
Darkbeforedawn 20th August 2018 at 19:30
at that time did you look at that image and think weâre dead?
No, at the time I actually didnât. I knew there had been talk of a Phoenix club for some time, and couldnât believe that the club wouldnât exist.
……………Why couldn’t you believe the club could not exist. Did you think Gretna could not exist? And if you could believe or see that Gretna could not exist, why do you believe at the time a rangers could not exist?
…………….
At no point on here have I said that what has happened was right or fair. All I have said is there has been a distinction made whereby a club is seen as an asset of the company,
………Who made this distinction,and why was this distinction now made of the ibrox club.before 2012.
And what was the name of the ibrox club seen as an asset of what name of company?
……………
If you never read what i posted earlier i will post again.
âRangers Football Club was founded in 1872 as an association football club and
was incorporated as a company on 27th May 1899. Rangers fans are of the view
that the club remained a separate entity â despite the incorporation into a
company â and when the parent company applied for administration on 14
February 2012 (then was subsequently put into liquidation) only the parent
company was affected by the process, not the âclubâ component of the
organisation. This is not a universal view, and certainly carries no legal definition.
………….What you believe carries no legal definition.
None have in Scotland so there has never been a need to be outraged.
Airdrie became Airdrie United, Gretna – Gretna 2008 and Third Lanark never did.
There was plenty of outrage on forums when Motherwell and Dundee(twice) called in administrators. I think also Livingston got a bit of stick.
The thing about these clubs was that they all apologised for doing what they had done.
Also you are wrong to believe this occasion was about Rangers/ Celtic. Aberdeen supporters have made their feelings known. In particular with a protest on the steps at Hampden. I am a Hibs supporter, Highlander and Wottpi Hearts and EasyJambo and AllyJambo have never made their affiliation known
but I do know they support neither Rangers or Celtic.
Darkbeforedawn 20th August 2018 at 17:12
Yet it's a situation that has parallels to that adopted by you and your fellow supporters towards the Scottish football authorities, whom you claim treated your club(s) appallingly before and after 2012 and cannot be trusted on any subject whatsoever…………………except of course when it comes to the solitary matter of them treating old and new clubs as one, on which subject they are paragons of virtue whose word is law, something which conveniently suits your narrative.
Double standards or rank hypocrisy – take your pick.
WRT phoenixing , I asked HM Government about a then current case and got this reply a year later . (don't know if this ever reached you , JC .)
Date: Wed, 23 Jul 2014 07:38:40 +0000
Dear
I have been passed your email, below, to answer. I work in the Policy Unit of the Insolvency Service, an executive agency of the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, which has responsibility for insolvency law and practice.
I note that the email was initially sent last year. I do not know what happened to it during this time – it was only passed to the Insolvency Service at the end of last week – but please accept my apologies for the lengthy delay in your receiving a reply and I hope that the information below is still of relevance to you.
As I hope you can appreciate, I cannot discuss individual cases such as the one mentioned in your letter (other than where the information is in the public domain) but I am able to talk generally about the insolvency law framework.
It is a principle of UK insolvency law that insolvencies be carried out in the interests of the insolvent’s creditors. All insolvencies in the UK must be administered by an insolvency practitioner (‘IP’), a licensed, regulated professional, or (for certain insolvencies) by the official receiver (part of the Insolvency Service). An IP appointed over an insolvent company will look to get the best deal for creditors by realising the assets of the company. This may include saving the company itself – for example through proposing a company voluntary arrangement (‘CVA’). Or it may involve selling all of the business as a going concern to a new company, or it may involve selling assets piecemeal (whatever is in creditors’ best interests).
In all of those scenarios, the trading name or style of the insolvent business (and any other intellectual property it might have, for example trademarks) can be dealt with by the IP. It is not unusual for a trading name or style to be used by a new company following a sale of the business by an IP – for example, several high street retailers have been rescued following an insolvency procedure in recent years and continue to use the same name.
By acting in this way, the UK’s insolvency framework (ranked 7th out of 191 countries by the World Bank) preserves value in the viable parts of insolvent companies (and also saves jobs), while also acting in the creditors’ best interests.
It is important to note that the insolvency framework is underpinned by enforcement regime. Where a company has become formally insolvent, the insolvency office-holder must report to the Secretary of State regarding the conduct of the directors prior to the failure. Where there has been sufficient misconduct (and where it is in the public interest to do so), the Secretary of State may take action to disqualify the relevant directors from acting as a director in future. This disqualification can be for between 2 to 15 years, depending on the severity of the misconduct.
It may interest you to know that the Secretary of State is taking disqualification action through the court against Craig Whyte. As this matter is before the court, I cannot say anything further regarding it. For the avoidance of doubt, this information is in the public domain.
I hope that you have found this information useful and once again I am sorry for the delay in your receiving a reply to your original enquiry.
Yours sincerely
Steven Chown
Steven Chown | Senior Policy Adviser | External Affairs – Policy Unit | The Insolvency Service |Floor 4, 4 Abbey Orchard St, London, SW1P 2HT | T + 44(0)20 7637 6501 | steven.chown@insolvency.gsi.gov.uk | https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/insolvency-service
On the subject of incorporation, can i ask for people to consider 3 scenarios which are identical to the Rangers issue. I would be interested in why these differ.
Rotherham United founded 1925
https://www.themillers.co.uk/club/club-history/
Oldco 2008 – https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/05764000 – Incorporation shown
Administrators statement 15th October 2008 –
https://www.scribd.com/document/381373701/Rotherham
Note:
2.1 The Adminstrator identified that the major value in the Club derived from its ability to compete in the Football League and various knockout competitions. To do so, the Club must hold a share in each of the Football League and the Football Association.
2.3 The sale process, as outlined in full in the Administrator’s proposals resulted in Rotherham Untited (RUFC) Limited “newco” making an offer of £200,000 for the Club together with funding the Administration until completion and the transfer of the Shares referred to above
4.1 Although the CVA was rejected by the creditors, under the agreement with the Football League to transfer the share, a further sum of £75,000 is to be paid by the newco
This is the Newco 2008 – https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/06550400
Liquidation commences 7th February 2009 of Oldco –
https://www.scribd.com/document/381379795/Rotherham-Liquidation
The FA handed out a 17 point deduction for failing to exit administration and Rotherham continued playing in the Football League. Full story here:
https://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/sport/rotherham-united-hit-by-17-point-penalty-1-2511185
________________________________________________________
Luton Town founded 1885 –
https://www.lutontown.co.uk/club/club-history/
Oldco 2006 – https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/04977080 – Incorporation shown
Administrators statement 17th June 2008 –
https://www.scribd.com/document/381373659/Luton-Town
Note:
3.2.1 As previously explained the joint administrators identified that the major value in the Club derived from its ability to compete in the Football League and various knockout competitions. To do so, the Club must hold a share in each of the Football League and the Football Association.
4.1.3 The administrators accepted a conditional offer on 20 February 2008 from LTFC 2020 in the sum of £1,625,000 (together with a write off of the £520,000 loan in any event) for the business and assets of the company, conditional upon the successful transfer of the Football League share.
5.6 HMRC voted for the rejection of the Administrators proposals for a CVA therefore the the proposed CVA was rejected.
This is the Newco 2008 – https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/06133975
Liquidation commences 17th November 2008 of Oldco –
https://www.scribd.com/document/381380838/Luton-Town-Liquidation
The football league handed them a 30 point penalty and stated:
https://www.independent.co.uk/sport/football/football-league/luton-town-hit-with-points-penalty-864607.html
"A Football League statement today read: "Luton Town were unable to agree a CVA with their creditors and as a consequence are unable to satisfy the normal conditions of the League's insolvency policy for exiting administration.
"The board decided, however, that they were prepared to exercise their absolute discretion under their 'exceptional circumstances' provisions in order to accommodate the new entity.
"In accordance with recent precedent, the board decided to include the following principle conditions of entry as a pre-requisite to the exercise of that discretion.
"1) The new company (Luton Town 2020) should pay the unsecured creditors the amount offered at the time of the CVA hearing (16 pence in the pound).
"2) A 20-point deduction should apply in the 2008-09 season, which also takes into account the fact that this is the club's third insolvency event in the last 10 years."
————
The above is a clear and unreserved acknowledgement of the continuation despite no CVA and a subsequent liquidation of the oldco
_________________________________________________________________
Leeds United founded 1919
https://www.leedsunited.com/club/leeds-united-history
Oldco 2008 – https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/00170600 – Incorporation shown
Administrators statement on the rejection of the CVA – 9th August 2007
https://www.scribd.com/document/381381212/LeedsCVA
Note:
2.2 Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs (‘HMRC’) lodged a challenge to the CVA, pursuant to Section 6 Insolvency Act 1986 (”the Act”) and Rule 1 17A, in the High Court of Justice, Leeds District Registry (“the Court”) on Tuesday, 3 July 2007. The basis of the challenge included, inter alia, that HMRC had been prejudiced due to football creditors receiving a higher dividend than other unsecured creditors, the basis on which three named creditors had been admitted to vote, that a potential breach of Section 216 of the Act – Restriction on re-use of Company Names had not been disclosed and that other inaccurate statements may have been made in the CVA proposal
2.3 A directions hearing took place in the Court on Friday, 6 July 2007 to set a date for the full hearing of HMRC’s challenge. Due to the complexity of the matters being considered, the judge listed the matter for a five day trial commencing on 3 September 2007, being the earliest available date
2.4 The full hearing date was three weeks after the 2007/08 football season commences and the supervisors expectation was that the judgement might not be handed down until late September/early October 2007, and could be subject to appeal.
2.5 The challenge by HMRC meant the Company could NOT complete the current CVA due to constraints of time and funding. In essence the administrators were not confident that sufficient funding could be generated from the sale of players to trade the Company through the conclusion of the Court process in respect of HMRC’s challenge
2.8 Under these circumstances, the supervisors concluded that there was no reasonable likelihood of the CVA being implemented. Accordingly on 16 July 2007 and Abort Certificate was issued pursuant to paragraph 15 1 1 of the CVA proposal.
This is the Newco 2007 – https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/06233875
Liquidation commences 17th November 2008 of Oldco –
https://www.scribd.com/document/381382155/Leeds-Liquidation
The football league handed them a 15 point penalty and it was noted:
"Bates placed Leeds in administration with debts of £35m before the end of last season so as not to incur a 10-point deduction for the forthcoming campaign. Administrators KPMG then agreed to sell the club straight back to the former Chelsea chairman, despite other bids. But Bates's offer to pay off creditors at a controversial Company Voluntary Agreement meeting was legally challenged by the Inland Revenue, who were owed £7.7m in unpaid taxes.
With the start of the new season fast approaching, administrators KPMG then decided to scrap the CVA and put the club back on the market. This prompted several other parties to make fresh offers, but Bates resubmitted his original offer and emerged victorious. The Football League objected to the fact that Bates had retained control for a third time without a CVA meeting where creditors could vote on whether to accept an offer to repay monies owed."
https://www.theguardian.com/football/2007/aug/09/newsstory.leedsunited
In all 3 scenarios above.
Oldco went into administration.
CVA was rejected or appealed and aborted.
liquidation process began
Administrators sold club to Newco
Newco took over the club
Club deducted 15 points and continued
Oldco went into liquidation
Still the same club in the views of the FA, the fans, opposing fans, rival fans and everyone.
Lawman !!!!
Listen to this!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AHe_qmo3gX4
Lawman, your a very naughty boy. Listen to this.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AHe_qmo3gX4
oops sorry a double post. my double poster has just been sacked.
Prefer this Jimbo
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wB9YIsKIEbA
Auldheid 20th August 2018 at 23:01
The 10 year coefficient table is drawn up from a sporting continuity context in that the results of all clubs playing in UEFA competitions in last ten years are included in the co coefficient calculations, which are then used for income distribution purposes.
____________________________________________________
Auldheid, i have noticed this line used a lot in the last week. Lets be straight here. The 10 year coefficient table is an official table used by UEFA and the points shown on it are points earned by the teams that are on it. Teams that have "folded" or that "no longer exist" have not scored ANY points since folding.
Rangers on the other hand have their points PRE 2012 and POST 2016. We also have the bonus point for winning the 1972 ECWC. There is absolute no doubt or position that can be taken other than Rangers FC who are playing in Europe this year will receive income based on our performances in Europe going back 46 years.
If as has been said the "official line" of UEFA is that Rangers are a new club, then this table is wrong and Rangers will receive a bigger slice of the pie than they are due which would be very easily challenged and very easily rectified.
bigboab1916 20th August 2018 at 23:09
The pictures and comments from the media and various management , players and TUPEs and the liquidation and court decisons and HMRC decision, was not created to suit a narrative for my or others benefit.
_______________________________________________–
The pictures and comments from media, players and management mean absolutely zero. And that is true of both sides of the debate. Nothing is proven by Dermott Desmond or Neil lennon saying we are the same club and equally nothing is proven by Gough or Walter Smith saying we are a new club.
TUPE is the law. The existence of the administration event and the subsequent takevoer then every person employed by Rangers was entitled to TUPE. But remember, in order for TUPE to be relevant, then there has to be a continuation of something. Otherwise its a brand new company with no past and can employ new people without taking on the huge cost of potentital redundancy payments (job continuation) and inflated salaries.
HMRC made one statement on the case and that 100% SUPPORTED same club even in liquidation. Again, i use the word SUPPORT and not PROVED.
As for courts, there has been i think 3, possibly 4 high profile cases that at given points touched on the club and its existence post liquidation. Whilst none of them were being specifically asked to rule on the specific point of new/old club, all 4 of them in the summary findings again supported the view its the SAME club. Again, im not entering this as ultimate proof, but simply narrative around supporting it.
Lawman2, I'm slightly bemused because, despite gaining a Geography O-Level many years ago, I can't for the life of me fathom whereabouts in Scotland are Leeds, Luton and Rotherham. The Western Isles perhaps? I'm equally confused why you didn't select clubs from Outer Mongolia in your example, as they also are not governed by Scots Law or the rules and regulations of the Scottish football authorities.
More importantly, and in order to make all of the above irrelevant, when are you ever going to provide incontrovertible evidence of precisely when and through what documented and verifiable process the club separated itself within the construct of an incorporated football club at some point between 1899 and 2012? For the purposes of clarity, the SFA/SPL/SFL/SPFL's word on the matter does not provide incontrovertible proof.
We could be forgiven for thinking no such evidence exists, because the club’s independence from the company was a necessary concoction dreamt up to support the absurd continuity myth. We can only ask you politely so many times.
LM2 @22.18
I cannot see the context in which your examples are valid.
Firstly, the law on incorporation in England differs from that in Scotland in that its wording leaves some "wiggle" room that could, with extreme effort, result in a court, depending on the person the bench, deciding that there was a separation of club and company. It has never been legally tested so no precedent has been set.
You state that
but nowhere do you give documented proof that the administrators sold Rangers, the club, to Sevco.
You state how those involved in the sport look on the new club. None of these groups are in a position to create a legal precedent. The FA, like the SFA, may have decided on financial grounds there was an advantage. We have seen many occasions where that association has dispensed with any sporting pretense to build their business. Why that has not been fought by the fans(well actually it has if you consider the Portsmouth case albeit only administration) brings us to another facet of this whole case. The complete lack of any remorse or shame by the publicly facing fans bodies and many individual fans. But then, from me, that is just supposition. All I can propose is that the sympathy that the opposition fans in the cases you quote may have had had the effect that in the fans minds enough punishment had been meted out and there was no need for them individually to revert to the law.
Up here, not only has there be no appropriate punishment for at least a decade of cheating but the authorities have acted in a dishonest manner to ensure that no punishment can be meted out. That is the raison d'etre for this website – to hold the administrators to account.
But it doesn't stop there. Despite having cheated the fans of all other teams not only has there been no apology or regret shown quite the opposite has happened. We have been confronted with lame justifications for the outcome of the cheating. Justifications that have been produced with aggression, vindictive accusations and violence that has been all wrapped up in a belief of self entitlement not just from the fans but the officers of the club. Throw into the mix the fact that the club, pre and post liquidation, has a record of violence towards other fans, criminal damage to the property belonging to the other clubs and a display of bigotry that has no place in modern society and the explanation why the sympathy and empathy shown by opposing fans to the clubs you give as an example becomes understandable. Every club has idiot fans but the scale at Ibrox and the involvement of the officers of the club take it to another level.
That last section of the preceding paragraph displays why there is a need for a site like this to exist. To tackle the organisations running Scottish football whose Articles of Association arm them with power and, more importantly, the duty to tackle this unacceptable behaviour. Despite the many offensive and untruthful official club statements aimed at people and clubs in our leagues appearing on the TRFC website not one comment, never mind, piece of action has come out of Hampden.
I hope that maybe goes some way to responding to you request for comment. It does not explain why in England as well as Scotland the authorities are left unchallenged when the choose to disregard the law of the land when making their financially appropriate decisions. It does explain though the viewpoint of many ordinary, decent fans.
Reiver 21st August 2018 at 12:24
It has never been tested in England and likewise it has never been tested in Scotland. You are 100% spot on that no precedent has been set. Either way.
Duff and Phelps Report July 2012.
https://scotslawthoughts.files.wordpress.com/2012/08/duff-phelps-report-july-2012.pdf
4.4 Following the sale of business and assets of the Company, the responsibility for maintaining all trading operations passed to Sevco which continues to operate the Club.
5.38 Should the CVA fail, a binding agreement to purchase the business, history and assets of the Club for £5.5m using a newly incorporated company.
10.5 A successful sale of the business, history and assets of the Company was achieved by the Joint Administrators despite the large number of complexities introduced by various stakeholders in the Club.
10.9 The history and spirit of the Club have been preserved by the sale which completed on 14 June 2012 and it is now the responsibility of the new owners to secure its future.
Correct. And neither are you nor I. Nor anyone. As there hasnt been one anywhere.
I agree on that.
I believe that its down to the fact there simply isnt the level of hatred in England that exists in Scotland. And thats on all sides, so absolutely no pointing of fingers in this one from me.
I understand thats why it exists and you are entitled to hold that opinion. I wont be drawn in on accusations though for my own protection.
This bit really irks me unless you really are saying other clubs are on a par. One club in Scotland has had 16 charges for fan behaviour in Europe in the past 14 years. In the same period, Rangers have had 5 though i accept the 5 year gap. The incidents in Maribo the other week have been seen in Anderlecht, Ajax and even at Maribor when other clubs have travelled there. The fans that get involved are idiots and theres no getting away with it, but you really need to be blind to think this is a Rangers problem. For what its worth though, i only see it as a 2 team problem.
Nothing to say on that to be honest.
I very much appreciate your response and i hope you can look at some of the references and offer a further counter view. We can drop all the fan issues as we in some ways agree on the relevance if not on the fairness.
LM
See main thread although my actual reply to you is currently being bounced. Mustn't have passed muster.
So let me get things straight.
The SFA is a limited company incorporated in 1903.
The SPFL is a limited company incorporated in 1997
Most professional clubs in the Scottish game are limited companies with a handful being associated to a larger Plc or parent company. Lets refer to this set up generally as owner/operator.
I have seen it argued in recent posts the SFA issues membership to owner/operators and this is what allowed a transfer of 'membership' from oldco to newco.
The SPFL appears to be clear their shares are only issued to owner/operators thus the vote to not pass the share from oldco to newco.
The owner/operators own the infrastructure used to play football unless they rent their ground and training facilities for another organisation, that is most probably a limited company, via legally binding contracts.
The owner/operators own the badges, trademarks and other intellectual properties unless they sell them or enter into an agreement with another organisation that is most likely a limited company, via legally binding contracts.
Players and managers/coaches sign contracts with the owner/operator, via legally binding contracts.
Fans pay money to watch games and this is effectively a sales transaction with the owner/operator.
Fans may choose (if they are traded on the open market) to hold shares in the owner/occupier.
So from the above, league and association membership, infrastructure, IPs, players and coaches employment contracts and the fan generated income are all part of a legal process and contracts/agreements with the owner/occupier.
If the club is seen as being separate from the owner/occupier limited company what exactly is 'the club'?
wottpi 22nd August 2018 at 12:11
I have seen it argued in recent posts the SFA issues membership to owner/operators and this is what allowed a transfer of 'membership' from oldco to newco.
The SPFL appears to be clear their shares are only issued to owner/operators thus the vote to not pass the share from oldco to newco.
The owner/operators own the infrastructure used to play football unless they rent their ground and training facilities for another organisation, that is most probably a limited company, via legally binding contracts.
The owner/operators own the badges, trademarks and other intellectual properties unless they sell them or enter into an agreement with another organisation that is most likely a limited company, via legally binding contracts.
Players and managers/coaches sign contracts with the owner/operator, via legally binding contracts.
Fans pay money to watch games and this is effectively a sales transaction with the owner/operator.
Fans may choose (if they are traded on the open market) to hold shares in the owner/occupier.
So from the above, league and association membership, infrastructure, IPs, players and coaches employment contracts and the fan generated income are all part of a legal process and contracts/agreements with the owner/occupier.
If the club is seen as being separate from the owner/occupier limited company what exactly is 'the club'?
_____________________________________________
Pretty sure the Inner House described the club as being the undertaking or the business to which the owner operates and that the business (the club) is capable of being transferred from one owner to another.
This description correlates EXACTLY with how Duff and Phelps describe it in the above document some 5 years earlier when they stated
5.38 Should the CVA fail, a binding agreement to purchase the business, history and assets of the Club for £5.5m using a newly incorporated company.
My outlook on all of this is that there are far too many variables for anyone to be sure. Whilst i argue or believe its the same club, i do so from the point of looking at the evidence which directly discusses the club. I actually dont believe there is 100% evidence on either side on this. This is in direct contradiction to "New Club" arguments who 99% of the time say their view is fact.
A Celtic fan i respect on Twitter summed it up in a private message to me by saying that every part of his football being says we are a New Club but the various documents from court aligned with SFA and SPFL stance on it plus the most recent addition to the 10 year rankings tells him the opposite.
Like me, he doesnt believe there is a definitive answer out there that will ever put both sides to bed on it.
Reiver – my apologies for my spelling
Interesting read, and certainly the description of carrying the business (ie the club) on a going concern aligns with my views – and for that matter HMRC. However I believe you won’t get many debating it with you as it does not fit the narrative of this site. A poster yesterday pointed out he didn’t care who said we were the same club, he still wouldn’t believe it.
Today really displays why those calling for restricting debate are being ridiculous.
Between when I posted at 10.12 and this evening there were two posts that were of substance and they were duplicates of the same subject. Ej and JC's report on the happenings in court today which was about whether a person should receive his expenses. It interested me but surely not you Barca, it is an issue that is not on your list. If I had posted on the OC/NC thread instead of here there would have been one other item in the previous 24 hours, where the same thing was said a number of times. There is a new PSC at Ibrox. SO? Nothing illegal is happening. No other club is being screwed by this. The SFA will not be fiddling the books to engineer its happening.
Really it is a subject that isn't in the mission statement of the site.
So guys do you think we will win hearts and minds with a forum comprising of day after day of dead space.
The TUs show that we have visitors here that only want to read Rangers bashing. Is that what you want the site to turn into.
I also find it amusing that for months anytime I made a comment about Rangers – with no intention of getting into a OC/NC debate, whatever the non related post I made was on it would be derailed by folk telling me it is a new club. When I asked if we could get back on topic I was met with “we should never stop debating it until everyone sees it as a new club”. Now suddenly when posters start putting out articles and views that don’t meet their own closed and set views on the topic it’s “let’s not debate the OC/NC”. It can’t be both ways, and I’m all for agreeing to disagree as I’ve said many times before and consign the debate to the separate forum. But we need a clear guide on whether it’s debated here or there.
CO
You are of course correct and to find that bill of sale would settle the whole issue. That where I see the importance of this topic.
42.The continuation of trading operations enabled the Joint Administrators to put the CVA Proposal
to the creditors of the Company and after the CVA Proposal was rejected by creditors, the Joint
Administrators were able to secure a going concern sale of the business, history and assets of the
Company to Sevco (see Section 5 for further details).
………….
4.4 Following the sale of business and assets of the Company, the responsibility for maintaining all
trading operations passed to Sevco which continues to operate the Club. The Joint
Administrators have completed a handover of operational matters to Sevco and are now
undertaking an exercise to finalise all outstanding issues relating to the Administration trading
period.
……………….
Why was history mentioned in section 42, but not in section 44?
………As i said,just catching up.
Before i retire to read the link.
Administrators were able to secure a going concern sale of the business, history and assets of the
……….
D & P’s assertion that they sold the history could. Until it is questioned in a court of law it has not been proven one way or another..
…………..
So who said D&P could sell history? Do they have a licence to sell history.If there is such a thing.If it has not been provan in a court of law that you can or can’t sell history.Why do D&P believe they have the right to do so?
D&P Were being paid.And maybe an increase in payment if they could come up with the best proposal they could.Adding in a bit of history even if they could or could not do it,it was the best proposal they could come up with.
………….
Boab
Ah, the Devils Beeftub above Moffat, those were the days. I remember it well.
Go find the evidence CO. I have faith in you.
The administrators sole responsibility is making sure that, if the business survives, the creditors get as much back of what they are owed as possible. The premise at the start is that the best chance of that happening is if the business survives. Selling to Sevco is not the business surviving because Sevco is owe the creditors nothing. These are the strongest points in our favour from a moral standpoint.
4.1 The Club continued to trade under the control of the Joint Administrators up to the date of the sale of the business and assets of the Company to Sevco on 14 June 2012. During this period, the Club was able to complete all of its remaining SPL fixtures and achieved second place in the final SPL standings for the 2011/2012 season. 4.2 The continuation of trading operations enabled the Joint Administrators to put the CVA Proposal to the creditors of the Company and after the CVA Proposal was rejected by creditors, the Joint Administrators were able to secure a going concern sale of the business, history and assets of the Company to Sevco (see Section 5 for further details).
4.4 Following the sale of business and assets of the Company, the responsibility for maintaining all trading operations passed to Sevco which continues to operate the Club. ……………….. The Club continued to trade up to the date of the sale of the business and assets of the Company to Sevco on 14 June 2012. the Club was able to complete all of its remaining SPL fixtures. The continuation of trading operations enabled the Joint Administrators to put the CVA Proposal to the creditors of the Company and after the CVA Proposal was rejected by creditors. Following the sale of business and assets of the Company, the responsibility for maintaining all trading operations passed to Sevco which continues to operate the Club. …………………. From that i get The Club continued to trade. trade as in play football and complete it's fixtures and whilst this was happening D&P put a CVA Proposal to the creditors,that was rejected and the responsibility for maintaining all trading operations passed to Sevco which continues to operate the Club. ……… the responsibility for maintaining all trading operations.ie playing football.This operation now fell to sevco to see if they could get a club up and running,as D&P had done what they could and all they could. Now this is me retiring
I agree it’s an argument that’s not likely to go away. If UEFA, the SPFL and HMRC came out in a joint statement to say Rangers are the same club I very much doubt that would satisfy the “new club” brigade. Likewise, if they unequivocal said the opposite I’m sure there would be some “same clubbers” who would still not be convinced.
For or what it’s worth I believe the business is the club, and the club is the badge, the history, the Rangers name, the fans etc. I think the stadium, car park, training ground etc are the assets. Rangers could move from Ibrox and still be Rangers (in much the same way as Arsenal are still Arsenal). The company can fold and as long as someone is willing to continue the “business” (aka the club) then again the club continues (in the same way as Leeds, Coventry, Rangers etc) have. Finally, if the company folds AND no one is willing to continue the “business” (aka club) or take on the assets then the club ceases to exist (in the same way Gretna or Airdrie did).
TheLawMan2 22nd August 2018 at 18:00
You are sure what the courts says but provide no factual proof.
The SFA CEO Regan said it was up to fans to decide the status of Rangers/ T'Rangers.
The SPFL via Doncaster seems to have relied on the ramblings of Lord Nimmo Smith who made a stab at defining a club, but it is clear that he said –
“This is not to say that a Club has legal personality, separate from and additional to the legal personality of its owner and operator. We are satisfied that it does not, and Mr McKenzie did not seek to argue otherwise. So a Club cannot, lacking legal personality, enter into a contract by itself.”
So lets not forget that Uefa defines clubs as,
"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: ………………
I wholly agree with you the waters are well muddied so I am afraid your interpretation seems to hold no more merit that those arguing from the other side.
Darkbeforedawn 22nd August 2018 at 22:35
For or what it’s worth I believe the business is the club, and the club is the badge, the history, the Rangers name, the fans etc. I think the stadium, car park, training ground etc are the assets. Rangers could move from Ibrox and still be Rangers (in much the same way as Arsenal are still Arsenal). The company can fold and as long as someone is willing to continue the “business” (aka the club) then again the club continues (in the same way as Leeds, Coventry, Rangers etc) have. Finally, if the company folds AND no one is willing to continue the “business” (aka club) or take on the assets then the club ceases to exist (in the same way Gretna or Airdrie did).
==========================
I've no problem with that if that is what you believe. This issue for me is the lack a a documented definition of the "ethereal club" or the process by which such an ethereal club resurrects itself. That leaves me being much more comfortable with the club as a legal entity, not as some metaphysical entity that is created to suit the circumstances and the different interests of fans and football authorities. Board discretion is not the answer.
The "ethereal club" concept also takes you into franchise territory where the future of the "club" is at the mercy of the highest bidder or vested interests among the authorities. Any new owner could then relocate the "club" to some other city or town.
The Scottish examples you quote don't really help as I think Gretna 2008 was offered the opportunity to continue the mantle of Mileson's Gretna, but declined because of what the SFA or SFL wanted to impose on them in terms of sureties. Airdrieonians on the other hand wanted to continue but were denied by the authorities.
How long does a business/club have to be dead before it ceases to exist? There are plenty examples in the Junior ranks where clubs (unincorporated) go into abeyance for a season or two but are restarted with a new committee and new funding.
Cluster One 22nd August 2018 at 20:13
Reiver 22nd August 2018 at 20:36
—————
Somewhere or other there was published an itemised list of what Charles Green got for his £5.5M with a price attached to each item, accounting for the sum total. "History" wasn't on it and neither was there an item into which it could have been subsumed.
If a bill of sale, or anything like it, existed anywhere "History" would have been included. Trying to prove a negative is difficult, but that's as good as it gets.
Sorry I can't provide a link, I can't think where to begin looking.
Darkbeforedawn 22nd August 2018 at 22:35
I did what was expected and put a couple of posts on the Oldco/Newco blog but agree with EJ that it just got into the same circular argument with LM2.
I would however point out (as I did on the other blog) that the Badge and the name 'Rangers' can all be classed as intellectual property that is owned and controlled by the owner/operator. Or indeed, as was the case, can be sold off to another legal entity such as Sports Direct who held ownership of various Rangers IP's for a while a few years back.
In fact nearly everything that revolves around ‘a club’ can be linked to a legal transaction with the owner/operator.
I have still to see a definition of a club that manages to describe and totally separate such an entity from the company- owner/operator model that applies to almost all professional football teams. (The one recognised by Uefa BTW)
Any attempts to define a club get us back into the realms of a metaphysical construct and off we go again.
I came across this by chance and although I'm happy to leave the Glasgow Underground OC/NC train from St Enoch's to Copeland Road to carry on its circuitious journey I thought this letter from Grant Thornton of 15 Feb 2012 would at least question if the business and assets that Duff and Phelps sold to Sevco were a going concern, as auditors G & T didn't seem to think so.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1TX8m3eq-NE5cTTyf0iFWpus7E71DaU6H/view?usp=sharing
Fill yer boots folks. See you at Hyndland.
One point for the main blog really
When exactly did Grant Thornton learn the small tax case was lost on implementation?
Now THAT could be crucial.
Cluster One 22nd August 2018 at 21:19
So who said D&P could sell history? Do they have a licence to sell history.If there is such a thing.If it has not been provan in a court of law that you can or can’t sell history.Why do D&P believe they have the right to do so?
D&P Were being paid.And maybe an increase in payment if they could come up with the best proposal they could.Adding in a bit of history even if they could or could not do it,it was the best proposal they could come up with.
………….
D&P were getting paid, selling history or not. Are you alleging that Green paid them more for the history ?
wottpi 22nd August 2018 at 23:08
I wholly agree with you the waters are well muddied so I am afraid your interpretation seems to hold no more merit that those arguing from the other side.
__________________________________________________________
I genuinely dont disagree with this. Ive always debated from a point of what i believe the specific evidence relating to the argument supports. I cant actually say or prove we are the same club. I dont believe the argument coming back acknowledges that because 99% of the time, they want to tell everyone it is FACT and there is no debating.
To his very credit, i think Reiver has been the first person to challenge that line of thought despite clearly being someone who fully believes we are a new club.